a report to the attorney general on international … report to the attorney general on...

i

A Report to the Attorney General onInternational Parental Kidnapping

April 1999

NCJ 189382

Report

Subcommittee on International Child Abduction of theFederal Agency Task Force on Missing and Exploited Children and the

Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping

iii

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................3

Establishment of the Subcommittee on International Child Abduction and thePolicy Group on International Parental Kidnapping .................................................................................. 4

A Report on International Parental Kidnapping ......................................................................................... 5

Ongoing Commitment to Achieve “Best Practices” .................................................................................... 5

Section 2: Improving Federal Responses to International Parental Kidnapping .................... 7

Gap 1: Establish a more informative and coordinated Federal response to internationalparental kidnapping ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Gap 2: Develop a comprehensive statistical database on international parental kidnapping cases .... 10

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 11

Gap 3: Expand diplomatic efforts to resolve international parental kidnapping cases andeducate the public about them ...................................................................................................................... 11


Gap 4: Improve implementation of the Hague Convention ..................................................................... 12


Gap 5: Seek solutions to problems of parental access at an international level ..................................... 12


Gap 6: Foster more widespread and effective use of NCIC and INTERPOL to stop abductionsin progress and to locate abducted children and abductors ..................................................................... 13


Gap 7: Strengthen passport issuance and revocation practices and institute specialized trainingfor border inspectors to aid in deterring and intercepting cross-border parental abductions ............. 14


Gap 8: Provide education, training, and other assistance ......................................................................... 15


Gap 9: Expand the availability of resources to assist left-behind parents .............................................. 15


Issues for Further Study ............................................................................................................................... 16

iv

Section 3: Current Federal Responses to International Parental Kidnapping ....................... 17

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

International Parental Kidnapping Defined ........................................................................................... 19

Parental Kidnapping Victims ................................................................................................................... 19

Scope of the Problem ............................................................................................................................... 19

Overview of the Legal Response ............................................................................................................. 20

Part 1: Outgoing Cases ................................................................................................................................. 21

Prevention ................................................................................................................................................. 21

At the Local Level .............................................................................................................................. 21

Law Enforcement Intervention .................................................................................................. 21

Court-Ordered Prevention Measures ........................................................................................ 21

At the Federal Level .......................................................................................................................... 21

Prevention Packets ...................................................................................................................... 21

Passport Issuance and Denials ................................................................................................... 22

Flagging applications for U.S. passports ............................................................................. 22

Denying issuance of a child’s U.S. passport ........................................................................ 22

Revoking a child’s passport .................................................................................................. 22

Denying or revoking an abductor’s passport ...................................................................... 22

Entry controls: Denying visas .............................................................................................. 23

Departure controls ................................................................................................................ 23

Entry-exit control system ..................................................................................................... 23

Locating Abducted Children and Their Abductors ................................................................................ 23

National Crime Information Center ................................................................................................. 23

Immediate Entry of a Child into the Missing Person File......................................................... 24

NCIC Entries on the Abductor: Wanted Person File and Vehicle File .................................... 24

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues ............................................................................. 24

Welfare and Whereabouts Visits for U.S. Citizens Abroad ...................................................... 24

Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service .......................................................................... 24

INTERPOL–U.S. National Central Bureau ................................................................................... 24

Federal Bureau of Investigation ........................................................................................................ 25

U.S. Postal Service ............................................................................................................................ 26

Federal Inspection Services Personnel at U.S. Ports of Entry: U.S. Customs Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service .................................................................................. 26

Defense Department Legal Assistance Offices and Worldwide Military Locator Services .......... 26

Federal Parent Locator Service ........................................................................................................ 26

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ...................................................................... 27

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program Web Site ..................................................................... 27

v

Civil Remedies to Recover the Abducted Child ..................................................................................... 27

Mechanisms for Child Recovery ....................................................................................................... 27

Hague Convention Remedy ........................................................................................................ 27

Non-Hague Convention Country Recovery .............................................................................. 29

Recovery by Department of Defense Mechanisms ................................................................... 30

Encouraging Returns Through Visa Denials ............................................................................. 30

Federal Role in Civil Child Recovery ............................................................................................... 30

Welfare and Whereabouts .......................................................................................................... 30

Voluntary Return......................................................................................................................... 30

Finding a Lawyer ........................................................................................................................ 30

Facilitating Legal Proceedings Abroad ...................................................................................... 31

Diplomatic Initiatives .................................................................................................................. 31

Facilitating a Child’s Return to the United States ..................................................................... 32

Travel documents .................................................................................................................. 32

Transportation costs .............................................................................................................. 32

Repatriation loans ................................................................................................................. 32

Significant public benefit parole .......................................................................................... 32

Stopping an Abduction in Progress: Intercepting the Child ..................................................... 32

Intercepting the child in the United States .......................................................................... 32

Intercepting the child abroad ............................................................................................... 33

Criminal Prosecution and Extradition .................................................................................................... 33

State Law Prosecution, Assisted by Federal Law ............................................................................ 33

Fugitive Felon Act: Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution Warrants ...................................... 33

Federal Prosecution Under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act ............................. 34

Charging Considerations in Criminal Cases ..................................................................................... 35

Abductions to Hague Countries ................................................................................................. 35

Abductions to Non-Hague Countries ........................................................................................ 35

Imposition of Sentencing Conditions ................................................................................................ 35

Federal Victim-Witness Assistance ................................................................................................... 35

Conduct of International Criminal Investigations ........................................................................... 36

International Legal Assistance .................................................................................................... 36

Extradition ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Stopping an Abduction in Progress: Intercepting the Abductor ..................................................... 37

In the United States .................................................................................................................... 37

Upon Arrival or Entry at Foreign Country ............................................................................... 37

vi

Part 2: Incoming Cases ................................................................................................................................. 38

Locating Abducted Children and Their Abductors in the United States .............................................. 38

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ...................................................................... 38

Child Abducted From a Hague Convention Country ............................................................... 38

Child Abducted From a Non-Hague Convention Country ...................................................... 38

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues ............................................................................. 38

INTERPOL–USNCB....................................................................................................................... 38

Federal Inspection Service: INS and Customs ................................................................................ 38

NCIC .................................................................................................................................................. 38

FBI ...................................................................................................................................................... 38

U.S. Postal Service ............................................................................................................................ 39

Defense Department Legal Assistance Offices and Worldwide Military Locator Services .......... 39

Federal Parent Locator Service ........................................................................................................ 39

Civil Remedies for Child Recovery ......................................................................................................... 39

Hague Convention Remedy .............................................................................................................. 39

Legal Proceedings Under the Convention ................................................................................. 39

Lawsuits to Enforce Foreign Custody and Visitation Orders................................................... 40

Finding a Lawyer ............................................................................................................................... 40

Hague Cases ................................................................................................................................ 40

International Child Abduction Attorney ............................................................................. 40

Network ................................................................................................................................ 40

California’s public prosecutors ............................................................................................. 40

Defense Department legal assistance .................................................................................. 40

Non-Hague cases .................................................................................................................. 40

Intercepting a child at U.S. points of entry ......................................................................... 41

Criminal Arrest and Extradition .............................................................................................................. 41

Provisional Arrest and Extradition ................................................................................................... 41

Intercepting Incoming Abductions in Progress ............................................................................... 41

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 42

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix 1: Members of the Interagency Working Group ...................................................................... 45

Appendix 2: Laws That May Apply in International Parental Kidnapping Cases ................................ 47

Section 1: Introduction

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Establishment of the Subcommittee on International Child Abduction and thePolicy Group on International Parental Kidnapping ........................................................................... 4

A Report on International Parental Kidnapping ................................................................................... 5

Ongoing Commitment to Achieve “Best Practices” ............................................................................ 5

3

Recognizing that “international abduction or wrongfulretention of children is harmful to their well-being”(42 U.S.C. 11601), the Federal Government has be-come increasingly involved in finding solutions to in-ternational parental kidnapping. With the goals ofdeterring abductions, recovering children, and bring-ing abductors to justice, the Federal Government hasentered into international agreements, enacted laws,adopted procedures, and funded programs to improvethe response of the civil law and the criminal justicesystem when international abductions occur.

Two major Federal initiatives facilitate recovery ofabducted and wrongfully retained children: theHague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Interna-tional Child Abduction and its implementing legisla-tion the International Child Abduction RemediesAct. The Department of State is the U.S. CentralAuthority for the Hague Convention. The HagueConvention is the primary mechanism preferredunder U.S. law for the recovery of children ab-ducted internationally by a parent. It is in forcebetween the United States and 47 other nations.In countries not party to the Hague Convention,parents may still pursue private lawsuits under thelaws of the country in which the child is located.

Several Federal laws provide the authority to bringinternational child abductors to justice, including theFugitive Felon Act, the International ExtraditionTreaties Interpretation Act of 1998, and the Interna-tional Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. In addition,the series of missing children laws passed by Con-gress plays a vital role in helping to locate abductedchildren. Other laws also may come into play in aninternational abduction case. The laws are most suc-cessful when they deter abductions outright. Whendeterrence fails, the civil statutes enable those left-behind parents to seek recovery of the child, and thecriminal statutes enable law enforcement and pros-

ecutors to pursue the abductor. Although the childmay be located and possibly recovered through thecriminal pursuit of the abductor, the criminal processdoes not assure a child’s return, and parents shouldpursue civil means. Those left behind also need to beaware that pursuing criminal proceedings in fact maydiminish the chance of child recovery, particularly incountries that have ratified the Hague Convention.

The States likewise have developed law and practiceregarding parental abductions. Every State criminalizesparental kidnapping, although there is no single defi-nition or title of the offense. Statutes label the offensevariously as custodial interference, child abduction,parental abduction, child stealing, child snatching,family abduction, and parental kidnapping. All 50States and the District of Columbia have establishedmissing children clearinghouses. Some States haveenacted flagging statutes to monitor requests for birthand school records of missing children. All Stateshave laws addressing the issuance, modification, andenforcement of child custody determinations.

When a child is abducted from or wrongfully re-tained outside of the United States, State and locallaw enforcement, left-behind parents, and their ad-vocates naturally turn to the Federal Governmentfor help. After numerous phone calls, they discoverthat the Departments of State and Justice play par-allel but separate roles in facilitating the recovery ofa child and the extradition of an abductor to theUnited States for prosecution, while numerous otherFederal agencies and international authorities playsecondary roles in child recovery and fugitive appre-hension. The quest for help may also lead them tothe National Center for Missing and Exploited Chil-dren (NCMEC), a nonprofit organization funded, inpart, by the Department of Justice, as well as toother nongovernmental organizations, which mayalso be of assistance.

Introduction

4

What parents and law enforcement do not find is acentral point of contact in the Federal Governmentfor assistance and guidance on how to access Fed-eral resources. As a result, they are often uncertainabout whom to call and whether all available Fed-eral resources have been identified to address theircase. Although a network exists among Federal offi-cials who regularly work these cases, it may not beapparent to those parents, advocates, and law en-forcement officials who seek assistance as they ap-proach these cases, as most probably do, for a firstand only time. Further, agency personnel workingeither the civil or criminal aspects of an internationalabduction or wrongful retention case may not knowthe variety of assistance available, and they may lackan efficient means to find out what resources havealready been tapped. Consequently, those workingthese cases may not pursue certain avenues or makeappropriate referrals for further assistance.

Establishment of the Subcommitteeon International Child Abductionand the Policy Group onInternational Parental KidnappingThe Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention (OJJDP) within the Office of JusticePrograms at the Department of Justice is respon-sible for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Pro-gram (MECP), authorized by Congress in theMissing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984 (42U.S.C. 5771 et seq.). OJJDP, through MECP, hasfunded groundbreaking research, programs, andservices in relation to interstate and internationalparental kidnapping cases.

In 1994 the Federal Coordinating Council on Juve-nile Justice, chaired by the Attorney General, estab-lished a Missing and Exploited Children’s Task Force(Task Force) to coordinate Federal law enforcementresources to assist State and local authorities withdifficult missing and exploited children cases. In June1997, OJJDP, in cooperation with NCMEC, spon-sored an International Parental Abduction FocusGroup to identify common problems, improve thedelivery of services and support to parents and chil-dren, and reduce or prevent unnecessary stress andsuffering faced by victim parents whose children are

wrongfully removed to or retained in other countries.Soon after, in December 1997, the Task Force estab-lished a Subcommittee on International Child Abduc-tion to clarify the roles and responsibilities of themany Federal agencies that respond to internationalabduction cases and to explore ways to improve thegovernmentwide response.

Chaired by Ronald Laney, Director of OJJDP’sOffice of Missing and Exploited Children’s Pro-gram, the Subcommittee comprises representativesof numerous Federal agencies as well as other orga-nizations with a special interest in this problem.Participating entities are the Department of State(Office of Children’s Issues, which is the U.S. CentralAuthority for the Hague Convention; Office of theLegal Adviser; Bureau of Diplomatic Security); theDepartment of Justice (Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention; Missing and ExploitedChildren’s Program; Executive Office for U.S. Attor-neys; Criminal Division, the Office of InternationalAffairs and the Child Exploitation and ObscenitySection; the INTERPOL–U.S. National CentralBureau; the Immigration and Naturalization Service;the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office ofGeneral Counsel and the Office of Crimes AgainstChildren); the Department of Treasury (U.S. Cus-toms Service); the National Center for Missing andExploited Children; the Kern County, California,District Attorney’s Office; and the American Prosecu-tors Research Institute.

In a series of meetings that began in January 1998,the Subcommittee reviewed how each agencyhandles international child abduction cases and dis-cussed issues of interagency coordination. It clari-fied agency roles, responsibilities, and jurisdiction ininternational abduction cases and identified prob-lems at the State and Federal levels that impactthese cases. The Subcommittee also developed rec-ommendations to address the identified problems.

In November 1998, the Attorney General, afterdiscussion with the Secretary of State, conveneda Policy Group, comprising key high-level repre-sentatives from the Departments of Justice andState, to expedite appropriate reforms in the Federalresponses to international child abduction. Using theSubcommittee’s recommendations as a springboardfor discussion, the Policy Group adopted a series of

5

recommendations (which appear in section 2), pri-oritized actions for immediate implementation, andmade plans to assess existing resource needs of theagencies as well as budgetary implications of pro-posed initiatives.

A Report on International ParentalKidnappingIt became evident from the Subcommittee’s delibera-tions that the Federal Government as a whole needsa statement describing current responses in interna-tional parental kidnapping cases, including identifi-cation of problems.

Section 3 of this report addresses the first need. Itdescribes current Federal responses to internationalparental kidnapping, distinguishing between civilremedies to recover children and criminal mecha-nisms to bring abductors to justice, and identifiesproblems with existing law and practice.

Section 2 describes shortcomings in the current re-sponses and makes recommendations to close thegaps and more effectively engage the many agenciesinvolved to improve the Federal responses to inter-national child abduction cases. It concludes by iden-tifying issues for further study.

Ongoing Commitment to Achieve“Best Practices”This Report to the Attorney General is an importantmilestone in the work on international parental kid-napping by the Interagency Subcommittee and thePolicy Group. To fulfill the second need identifiedby the Subcommittee, guides for law enforcementand parents on Federal resources in internationalparental kidnapping cases also will be developed.1

Efforts to improve Federal responses to interna-tional parental kidnapping will continue in an inter-agency working group, which recommendation 1.4proposes establishing. (Appendix 1 lists members ofthe proposed core interagency working group.) Theinteragency working group, to be chaired by theDepartment of State, will meet at least quarterly toreview and seek resolution of difficult cases, exploreproblems with Hague Convention implementation,and promote interagency coordination. The PolicyGroup will continue to meet periodically to addressissues identified for further study. It and the pro-posed interagency working group will monitor theFederal Government’s responses to internationalparental kidnapping cases, with a goal of seekingand implementing best practices to prevent and re-solve them.

1 Copies of the Department of State booklet, International Paren-tal Child Abduction, and the existing guide, Federal Resources onMissing and Exploited Children: A Directory for Law Enforcement andOther Public and Private Agencies (Federal Agency Task Force forMissing and Exploited Children, 1997) accompany this report.

Section 2: Improving FederalResponses to International

Parental Kidnapping

Gap 1: Establish a more informative and coordinated Federal response tointernational parental kidnapping .............................................................................................................. 9

Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 9

Gap 2: Develop a comprehensive statistical database on internationalparental kidnapping cases ........................................................................................................................... 10

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 11

Gap 3: Expand diplomatic efforts to resolve international parental kidnappingcases and educate the public about them .......................................................................................... 11


Gap 4: Improve implementation of the Hague Convention .......................................................... 12


Gap 5: Seek solutions to problems of parental access at an international level ................ 12


Gap 6: Foster more widespread and effective use of NCIC and INTERPOL to stopabductions in progress and to locate abducted children and abductors ............................. 13


Gap 7: Strengthen passport issuance and revocation practices and institutespecialized training for border inspectors to aid in deterring and interceptingcross-border parental abductions ........................................................................................................... 14


Gap 8: Provide education, training, and other assistance ............................................................ 15


Gap 9: Expand the availability of resources to assist left-behind parents ............................. 15


Issues for Further Study ................................................................................................................................ 16

9

This section identifies gaps in the FederalGovernment’s current responses to internationalparental kidnapping cases, i.e., cases involving theinternational wrongful removal or retention of achild. Recommendations are made to close the gapsand improve the governmentwide handling of thesedifficult cases. Many of the recommendations haveresource implications.

GAP 1: Establish a moreinformative and coordinatedFederal response to internationalparental kidnappingMany different Federal agencies are potentially in-volved in international child abduction situations.Interagency coordination occurs, but there is noestablished framework for assuring accurate track-ing of case activity by all concerned agencies or forassisting those officials in assuring that all appropri-ate measures are being taken by all appropriateagencies in any given case.

There also is no central point of contact for informa-tion and guidance for parents, their advocates, otherassisting organizations, or for State and local lawenforcement, all of whom turn to the Federal Gov-ernment for help in international abduction cases.Much more could be done to provide information tothese interested parties about assistance that may beavailable and how to obtain it, and to facilitate coor-dination and communication among relevant agen-cies. In addition, there are significant gaps inservices provided, for example, in the area of coun-seling and support to left-behind parents and tofamilies and children even at the end of the ordeal.

Recommendations1.1 Identify/designate a point of contact (POC) forleft-behind parents, their advocates, interested orga-nizations, and law enforcement in international childabduction cases. The POC for law enforcement maybe different than the POC for parents and their ad-vocates. The role of the POC(s) shall be to provideinformation about assistance that may be availablefrom the Federal Government and other govern-mental and private sources to address the civil andcriminal aspects of international parental kidnappingand to explain how to obtain appropriate assistance.The POC(s) shall serve as a liaison between theseoffices and interested parties to facilitate communi-cation and promote interagency collaboration toresolve specific cases.

1.2 A comprehensive case tracking system couldfoster collaboration and coordination among agen-cies and improve the Federal responses to and ser-vices for children, parents, law enforcementagencies, and other organizations involved in inter-national child abduction cases.

1.2.1 A comprehensive system could gatherinformation on the status of internationalchild abduction cases from Federal,State, and local agencies and nonprofitorganizations. Appropriate informationshould be accessible to all Federalagencies and cooperating nonprofitorganizations involved in internationalparental kidnapping cases via computernetwork, an Internet site, or othersource.

Improving Federal Responses to InternationalParental Kidnapping

10

1.2.2 Consideration of the system should alsoinclude development of a checklist to beused by agencies to gather informationfrom the party requesting assistance.(Missing children clearinghouses and lawenforcement at the State and local levelsmay also use the checklist.)

1.3 Task a group of management informationsystems specialists from all appropriate Federalagencies and any relevant nongovernmental organi-zations, as necessary, to review existing systemsused for gathering, updating, analyzing, and dis-seminating both case-specific and aggregate infor-mation on international abduction cases and toexplore development of a comprehensive casetracking system, as well as a system—responsiveto gap 2—that integrates statistics and informationfrom all relevant agencies.

1.4 Establish a working group of the Policy Group,comprising representatives from Federal agencies,the POC(s), and relevant contractors—for example,the National Center for Missing and Exploited Chil-dren—chaired by the Office of Children’s Issues(which is also the U.S. Central Authority) to meetquarterly, or more often as needed. This group willreview and foster resolution of difficult internationalparental abduction cases, both Hague and non-Hague, including cases identified by the POC; ex-plore systemic problems with the implementation ofthe Hague Convention; and promote interagencycoordination in the resolution of cases.

1.5 Support the National Center for Missing andExploited Children in its role as a missing children’sclearinghouse in international child abduction cases.The clearinghouse would serve as a repository forinformation, research, literature, and so forth, relat-ing to international child abduction cases; and en-sure that this information is accessible to parents,law enforcement officials, prosecutors, lawyers,judges, and other children’s advocacy organizations(via the Internet and other means) consistent withapplicable privacy laws. (See recommendation 9.6.)

GAP 2: Develop a comprehensivestatistical database on internationalparental kidnapping casesThere is no one comprehensive integrated processfor gathering and analyzing data and information oninternational child abduction cases. Addressing thisproblem requires that all agencies should assure thetimely and complete entry of appropriate informa-tion in the abduction cases they handle. The prob-lem of integrating data from various sources mustalso be addressed. For example, although the De-partment of State’s Office of Children’s Issues hastaken steps to improve its data collection and analy-sis, other offices and agencies, each working with itsrespective database system, may use different crite-ria to categorize cases, actions, and results. As aconsequence, there is no comprehensive, integratedstatistical database that can be used to describereliably the incidence of abduction cases, agencyactions with respect to those cases, results andtimeliness of results, and the use and efficacy ofthe Convention and other legal remedies.

If a comprehensive statistical database could be de-veloped, it could serve a variety of objectives, in-cluding: (1) more accurately identifying the resourceneeds of responding Federal agencies; (2) assessingthe record of various countries in returning ab-ducted children; (3) identifying problem areas andbest practices; (4) evaluating the efficacy of theHague Convention both as a whole and also withrespect to the performance of particular countries;(5) seeking to improve mechanisms for returningchildren under the Hague Convention and otherwiseby sharing data selectively with other countries; (6)advising parents, their advocates, and courts of in-formation (including country-specific information)that may be useful in formulating appropriate courtorders and taking other actions to deter abductions;and (7) providing more accurate and useful informa-tion to policymakers, the Congress, and the publicabout the problem of international abductions.

There is a strong case, then, for the benefits of a com-prehensive statistical base. However, the technicalcomplexity and resource requirements entailed indeveloping such a capability need first to be explored.

11

Recommendations2.1 Task management information systems special-ists to explore development of a comprehensive sys-tem, as described in 1.3 above. If such a system isfeasible, then:

2.1.1 Use the data in making decisions aboutthe resource needs of agencies involvedin international abduction cases.

2.1.2 Make appropriate data available to thepublic consistent with applicable privacylaws.

2.1.3 Provide courts with country-specificinformation to help parents obtain appro-priate safeguards in child custody andvisitation orders where there is a risk ofinternational abduction or wrongful re-tention.

2.1.4 Share information with other countriesto foster the return of children under theHague Convention and otherwise.

GAP 3: Expand diplomatic effortsto resolve international parentalkidnapping cases and educatethe public about themDiplomatic efforts can be an important part of ad-dressing the problem of international parental abduc-tion, both in seeking—on multilateral and bilateralbases—to make treaty and nontreaty responses moreeffective generally and in seeking to resolve difficul-ties in particular cases involving the location of, re-turn of, and access to abducted children. However,many parents lack an understanding of what the Fed-eral Government can and cannot do to facilitate reso-lution of international parental child abduction cases.More can be done to provide such information.

More could also be done to systematize and inten-sify contacts with foreign governments on bilateraland multilateral bases to improve international re-sponses to parental child abductions. This is particu-larly true with respect to countries that have joinedthe Hague Convention, as discussed in connection

with gap 4. With non-Hague countries, the need isperhaps greater and the task is much more difficult,because no framework of international law governsthe matter; instead, each non-Hague country appliesits own law to its own nationals and others within itsown territory. Nonetheless, this is an area in whichall governments should recognize the necessity oftransnational legal cooperation in the best interestsof the child. The United States should intensivelyexplore possible legal and diplomatic tools thatcould better address this situation. Similarly, as dis-cussed in connection with gap 5, the problem ofaccess is particularly difficult; although the HagueConvention has a provision on rights of access, thishas not been developed, either in the text or in prac-tice, into an effective legal regime.

Recommendations3.1 Educate parents, attorneys, and other interestedparties on:

3.1.1 Sovereignty and dual nationality issues.

3.1.2 Practical application of political and dip-lomatic pressure in international parentalabduction cases in the United States andabroad.

3.1.3 Uses of diplomatic initiatives in multilat-eral treaty and bilateral contexts.

3.1.4 Diplomatic efforts being made by theUnited States to improve operation of theHague Convention.

3.1.5 Differing and sometimes conflicting pur-poses of the civil and criminal aspects ofabduction.

3.2 Invite foreign diplomatic personnel from embas-sies to participate in informal discussions to over-come barriers that impede resolution of internationalabduction cases, including special problems thatarise in cases involving dual nationals.

3.3 Articulate U.S. policy regarding diplomatic ini-tiatives in international parental kidnapping casesand the ways and means by which the State Depart-ment may communicate with foreign governmentson behalf of a left-behind parent seeking return of

12

an abducted child. Include a description of problemsand barriers to recovery that have arisen in pastcases and describe how they can be overcome. Dis-seminate this information to left-behind parents,their advocates, and other interested parties.

3.4 Consult left-behind parents on how to improveservice, using survey research tools and the familysupport network (an OJJDP-funded program,known as Project Hope, which trains parents toprovide crisis assistance and support to left-behindparents in the United States whose children are vic-tims of international abduction).

GAP 4: Improve implementationof the Hague ConventionThe Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of In-ternational Child Abduction provided for the firsttime an international treaty mechanism for parentsto seek the return of abducted and wrongfully re-tained children and to facilitate access to childrenlocated in another country. However, there aresystemic problems with how the Convention isimplemented in a number of countries, includingimpediments to locating children, delays in process-ing of cases, nonenforcement of court orders, lack ofaccess to children, and the imposition of conditionson return orders (undertakings). Efforts must con-tinue to improve the Convention’s effectiveness.Enhancing the operation of the Convention world-wide is of great interest to the United States becausemore children are abducted to and from the UnitedStates than any other Convention country.

Recommendations4.1 Ensure that the issue of international child abduc-tion and the need selectively to increase the numberof signatories to the Convention are on the officialagenda of relevant bilateral and multilateral meetingsattended by appropriate non-Hague countries.

4.2 Raise and examine delays in proceedings, qualityof legal representation, and compliance with theprovisions of the Convention with central authoritiesof Hague party countries.

4.3 Address issues, such as noncompliance, failureto enforce return and access orders, procedural de-lays, inability to locate children, and other problemsthat impede successful operation of the Convention,in bilateral discussions and at the next meeting ofHague Convention party countries at The Hague.

4.4 Make a concerted effort to expand access to legalservices in the United States and abroad for all left-behind parents in Hague and non-Hague cases by:

4.4.1 Expanding the International Child Ab-duction Attorney Network (ICAAN) toinclude attorneys in other countries whowill represent parents of abducted chil-dren on a pro bono or reduced-fee basis.

4.4.2 Working with foreign central authoritiesin Hague countries to identify lawyerswilling to be added to ICAAN.

4.4.3 Encouraging non-Hague countries,through their nonprofit organizationsand otherwise, to identify lawyers willingto provide representation in internationalparental abduction cases.

4.4.4 Continuing to expand the ICAAN net-work in the United States to provideassistance on incoming cases.

4.5 Work to increase the frequency of meetings ofparty countries in The Hague to review operation ofthe Convention.

GAP 5: Seek solutions toproblems of parental accessat an international levelAlthough not entirely satisfactory, there are some-what predictable law and practice regarding interna-tional child abduction. However, law and practiceregarding efforts of parents to visit their childrenabroad are much less well-developed. The HagueConvention is vague on how access rights (referredto in the United States as visitation rights) are to beeffectively exercised internationally, and the Conven-tion does not include return of the child as a remedy

13

for breach of access rights. There are recognizedshortcomings of the Hague Convention that shouldbe addressed. Thus, in Hague and non-Hague coun-tries, a left-behind parent’s ability to visit a child maybe largely dependent on the laws and customs of thecountry in which the child is located, which may un-fairly disfavor left-behind parents. Moreover, withouta clear international legal framework to address ac-cess problems, government agencies and private at-torneys—both here and abroad—are less able toassist parents in obtaining access.

Two possible avenues to improve the situation re-garding access may be to press, on a multilateralbasis, for better implementation of Hague Conven-tion provisions, which may provide relief regardingaccess, and to consider the efficacy of the 1996Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law,Recognition, Enforcement, and Cooperation in Re-spect of Parental Responsibility and Measures forthe Protection of Children (Hague Convention forthe Protection of Children) as a means of betteraddressing the access problem. Other solutionsshould also be explored.

Unmerited denial of access, whether in the contextof an abduction or not, is a serious problem which,to date, has not been satisfactorily addressed on aninternational level.

Recommendations5.1 Ensure that the issue of access rights is taken upat the next quadrennial meeting of Hague Conven-tion party countries at The Hague.

5.2 Accelerate consideration of the 1996 Hague Con-vention for the Protection of Children as a possiblemeans of enforcing access rights in party countries.

5.3 Investigate ways to improve international accessto children in Hague and non-Hague countries.

5.4 Explore arrangements with countries not partyto the Hague Convention to ensure that the left-behind parent may enjoy access to his or her childand that the child has access also to his or her sec-ond parent.

GAP 6: Foster more widespreadand effective use of NCIC andINTERPOL to stop abductions inprogress and to locate abductedchildren and abductorsWhen a left-behind parent reports an abduction inprogress to U.S. law enforcement authorities, thoseauthorities must immediately attempt both to locatethe abductor and child and to halt the abduction.U.S. law requires entering information on the childat once into the missing person database of the Na-tional Crime Information Center (NCIC). NCIC isa U.S. nationwide computerized police informationsystem. The FBI administers NCIC on behalf ofmore than 80,000 U.S. criminal justice agencies atall levels of government. If it has obtained a warrantfor the abductor, a law enforcement agency handlingan abduction case can enter a record on the abduc-tor in the NCIC wanted person database, as well.

There are, however, certain limitations regarding theuse of the NCIC system. First, the system is usefulonly if law enforcement officers have the training toknow when and how to make the best use of it. Notonly are there questions about whether officers havebeen adequately informed about making all appro-priate NCIC entries in international abductioncases, but there seem to be instances in which en-tries are removed prematurely when a missing childis located overseas—but not yet recovered—andsubsequent opportunities to identify the child’s (orabductor’s) movements are lost.

When an international abduction from the UnitedStates is underway, U.S. law enforcement must rap-idly notify and request assistance from appropriateforeign law enforcement authorities. In addition tocalling the FBI field office, U.S. Federal, State, andlocal law enforcement can alert foreign authorities24 hours per day, 7 days per week, every day of theyear, by contacting the INTERPOL–U.S. NationalCentral Bureau (USNCB).

14

If an abductor and child have entered one or an-other foreign country and their location is unknown,U.S. law enforcement can use INTERPOL’s power-ful notice system to search for them internationally.Red (fugitive), yellow (missing persons, includingan abducted child), and blue (trace and locate) no-tices provide all INTERPOL member countrieswith a given person’s case and identification infor-mation and ask any country locating the person tonotify the requesting country immediately so that itmay request extradition, facilitate a request for thechild’s return under the Hague Convention, or takeother action as appropriate. U.S. law enforcementcan apply for INTERPOL notices through theUSNCB. However, many U.S. law enforcementpersonnel are unaware of the various types of assis-tance available through INTERPOL.

Recommendations6.1 Explore the feasibility of a policy change forNCIC that would require maintaining NCICrecords concerning a child missing in a foreigncountry until the child is recovered or until the issueof the child’s return has been resolved.

6.2 Train U.S. Federal, State, and local law enforce-ment in using NCIC and INTERPOL more effectivelyin cases of children abducted from the United States.

GAP 7: Strengthen passportissuance and revocation practicesand institute specialized trainingfor border inspectors to aid indeterring and intercepting cross-border parental abductionsParents who believe their child may be at risk ofinternational abduction look to local and Federalauthorities for help in preventing, detecting, andintercepting an abduction. Travelers departing theUnited States do not encounter exit controls. (Occa-sionally Federal Inspection Service (FIS) personnelmay perform outbound merchandise inspections.)Airlines, not the U.S. Government, may require apassenger to show a valid passport when he or sheboards a plane. Even in cases where there may be

an opportunity to prevent or delay the departure ofa child and/or parent in a suspected abduction,FIS personnel at the border may not be adequatelytrained to respond to abductions.

Preventing the issuance of a passport to a child maydeter some abductions. A parent with a valid cus-tody order may put a hold on the issuance of a U.S.passport to his or her child(ren) by contacting theDepartment of State. The State Department Officeof Passport Services may deny or revoke a U.S.passport of an abducting parent who is the subjectof a Federal warrant. However, neither of thesemeasures is widely known to parents or to all lawenforcement authorities. It is clear that there needsto be wider training and information materials avail-able to parents and law enforcement.

Because many abducted children are dual nationals,they may also hold a valid passport of the othercountry. If they don’t have one, they may apply forone. There may be no barriers to the issuance ofthese passports. In fact, the foreign countries’ em-bassies and consulates may be required to issue apassport on demand by one of their nationals. Atpresent there is no requirement for the PassportOffice to notify a foreign government when it deniesa passport for a dual national child. Nor is there isa formal mechanism to inform foreign governmentsabout lookouts placed in the system for U.S. pass-port applications for these children.

Recommendations7.1 Provide a joint training program for FederalInspection Services personnel at U.S. borders andports of entry to increase awareness about interna-tional child abduction.

7.2 Review policies governing the issuance anddenial of U.S. passports.

7.2.1 Improve awareness about procedures toprevent issuance of a child’s passport tothe noneligible parent.

7.2.2 Notify the concerned foreign embassy ofa lookout placed in the U.S. passportsystem on a dual national child, at therequest of the custodial parent.

15

7.2.3 Pursue regulatory changes to allow revo-cation of a child’s U.S. passport on thesame basis that the issuance of a U.S.passport can be denied.

7.3 Explore ways to increase awareness among Fed-eral, State, and local officials of procedures for andthe effect of revoking U.S. passports when a parent(or other person) is criminally charged with childabduction.

GAP 8: Provide education,training, and other assistanceInternational parental child abduction is a complexand difficult issue. For attorneys, judges, and offi-cials at all levels of government who deal with familylaw and custody matters, the prospect or fact of aninternational abduction will generally present issuesof law, fact, and practice as to which they have littleor no experience or training. For parents—oftenunder extreme stress—the picture is even moredaunting. Although information, experience, andassistance are available, they are not easily acces-sible, nor has there been a systematic, coordinatedeffort to educate and assist parents and others in-volved about remedies and resources in internationalchild abduction cases.

Recommendations8.1 With extensive coordination with other Federalagencies, the Missing and Exploited Children’s Pro-gram shall develop a formal, comprehensive educa-tion, training, and technical assistance program forparents; Federal, State, and local law enforcementofficials and prosecutors; State clearinghouses;judges; attorneys; and other agencies and organiza-tions involved in civil and criminal international ab-duction cases. This effort shall be linked to trainingon international parental kidnapping provided byother agencies and organizations. (See 8.2.1, below.)

8.2 Identify current training and technical assistanceresources. Design, develop, and conduct training;provide technical assistance; and disseminate publica-tions and other products to fill needs and gaps in ser-vice delivery. Provide training to State and Federallaw enforcement and prosecutors on the investigation

and prosecution of parental kidnapping, focusing onactions to be taken immediately in cases of suspectedinternational parental kidnapping. Provide training toagency personnel who deal with left-behind parentsto ensure they have the necessary sensitivity and ex-pertise to respond effectively in international abduc-tion cases and are conversant with the rights andservices due to Federal crime victims. Train judgesand attorneys on the Hague Convention, other inter-country agreements concerning children, problemsrelated to dual nationality, obstacles to recovery, therelationship between domestic violence and parentalkidnapping, the impact of abduction on children, andprevention. (See 8.3, below.)

8.2.1 Each Federal agency involved in the civilor criminal aspects of international childabduction shall ensure that there is de-tailed guidance on appropriate responsesin these cases and that training on inter-national parental kidnapping is routinelyincluded in continuing education pro-grams for agency personnel involved inthese cases.

8.3 Focus attention on preventing abductions. De-velop a media campaign to educate parents, the pub-lic, and organizations and agencies involved in thesecases. Increase public awareness of the Hague Con-vention. Highlight problems created by dual nation-ality. Create and disseminate prevention information(e.g., fact sheets and official letters) to educatejudges and parents on issues related to dual nation-ality and safeguards that can be included in custodyorders to deter abductions.

8.4 Develop a mentoring approach to encouragelawyers, prosecutors, and law enforcement officialswho have experience with international abductioncases to share their experiences and expertise withsimilarly situated parties.

GAP 9: Expand the availability ofresources to assist left-behindparentsAt the international level, securing the return ofabducted children, and in the criminal context, thereturn of abductors, can entail significant costs—

16

costs that may be beyond the resources of parentsor, when a criminal case is involved, of local lawenforcement officials. Indeed, lack of funds may be asignificant obstacle to recovering abducted childrenfrom another country. Left-behind parents may lackthe means to travel abroad, to retain a lawyer andpay other legal costs, to engage translators and inter-preters, to undertake an international search for thechild, to obtain counseling, or even to transport thechild home. State and local prosecutors may foregocriminal charges in international parental kidnap-ping cases because of the costs involved in seekinginternational extradition of fugitive abducting par-ents, including translating legal documents and pay-ing to transport the abductor and escort officersback to the United States. Also, State missing chil-dren clearinghouses may have insufficient resourcesto effectively assist left-behind parents and local lawenforcement in abduction cases.

Recommendations9.1 Explore the availability of financial resources,such as victim assistance funds from the Office forVictims of Crime, to defray some of the expensesincurred by left-behind parents in international pa-rental kidnapping cases.

9.2 Consider legislation to make Federal funds avail-able in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter to defray thecost of extradition in cases involving State offenses.(The administration supported such legislation in1998.)

9.3 Encourage States to review the sufficiency offunding and staffing of State missing children clear-inghouses and to consider how these entities canbest help parents of abducted children.

9.4 Encourage States to add parental kidnapping tothe list of offenses for which State victims of crimecompensation is available.

9.5 Support the establishment of a mediation pro-gram to help resolve wrongful removal and retentioncases and to foster voluntary return of children fromHague countries.

9.6 Through the clearinghouses or other appropriatemechanism, promote the development and expansionof support services for parents, including counselingand mentor support networks. (See recommenda-tions 1.5, 3.4, and 8.4.)

Issues for Further Study1. Further review additional means to interdict ab-ductors before they abduct children from this coun-try.

2. Further review ways to provide meaningful assis-tance to left-behind parents.

2.1 Consider whether to encourageStates to enact the Uniform Child CustodyJurisdiction and Enforcement Act(UCCJEA), including its provisions thatauthorize State prosecutors (or other des-ignated public officials) to locate and ob-tain the return of a child in an incomingHague Convention case.

3. Explore the legal and policy issues involved inauthorizing Federal or State law enforcement au-thorities to place a child, listed on NCIC as missing,into protective custody when the facts known to thelaw enforcement official encountering the child donot support the arrest of the accompanying adult.

4. Identify specific laws and policies that may en-courage abductors or impede resolution of abduc-tion cases, e.g. military regulations.

5. Elaborate NCMEC’s role in international paren-tal kidnapping cases. (See recommendation 1.5.)

Section 3: Current FederalResponses to International

Parental Kidnapping

Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 19

International Parental Kidnapping Defined .............................................................................................. 19

Parental Kidnapping Victims ....................................................................................................................... 19

Scope of the Problem .................................................................................................................................... 19

Overview of the Legal Response ................................................................................................................. 20

Part 1: Outgoing Cases .................................................................................................................................. 21

Prevention ...................................................................................................................................................... 21

At the Local Level .................................................................................................................................... 21

At the Federal Level ................................................................................................................................. 21

Locating Abducted Children and Their Abductors ................................................................................... 23

National Crime Information Center ........................................................................................................ 23

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues ................................................................................... 24

Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service ................................................................................ 24

INTERPOL–U.S. National Central Bureau .......................................................................................... 24

Federal Bureau of Investigation .............................................................................................................. 25

U.S. Postal Service ................................................................................................................................... 26

Federal Inspection Services Personnel at U.S. Ports of Entry: U.S. Customs Service andImmigration and Naturalization Service ................................................................................................. 26

Defense Department Legal Assistance Offices and Worldwide Military Locator Services ................ 26

Federal Parent Locator Service ............................................................................................................... 26

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ............................................................................ 27

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program Web Site ............................................................................ 27

Civil Remedies to Recover the Abducted Child ......................................................................................... 27

Mechanisms for Child Recovery ............................................................................................................. 27

Federal Role in Civil Child Recovery...................................................................................................... 30

Criminal Prosecution and Extradition ........................................................................................................ 33

State Law Prosecution, Assisted by Federal Law .................................................................................. 33

Federal Prosecution Under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act ................................... 34

Charging Considerations in Criminal Cases ........................................................................................... 35

Imposition of Sentencing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 35

Federal Victim-Witness Assistance.......................................................................................................... 35

Conduct of International Criminal Investigations .................................................................................. 36

Extradition ................................................................................................................................................ 36

Stopping an Abduction in Progress: Intercepting the Abductor ........................................................... 37

Part 2: Incoming Cases .................................................................................................................................. 38

Locating Abducted Children and Their Abductors in the United States ............................................... 38

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ............................................................................ 38

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues ................................................................................... 38

INTERPOL–USNCB ............................................................................................................................. 38

Federal Inspection Service: INS and Customs ....................................................................................... 38

NCIC......................................................................................................................................................... 38

FBI ............................................................................................................................................................ 38

U.S. Postal Service ................................................................................................................................... 39

Defense Department Legal Assistance Offices and Worldwide Military Locator Services ................ 39

Federal Parent Locator Service ............................................................................................................... 39

Civil Remedies for Child Recovery ............................................................................................................. 39

Hague Convention Remedy ..................................................................................................................... 39

Finding a Lawyer ..................................................................................................................................... 40

Criminal Arrest and Extradition ................................................................................................................. 41

Provisional Arrest and Extradition ......................................................................................................... 41

Intercepting Incoming Abductions in Progress ...................................................................................... 41

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 42

19

Overview

International Parental Kidnapping DefinedInternational parental kidnapping encompasses taking,retaining, or concealing a child outside the country inwhich the child normally resides by a parent, his or heragent, or other person in derogation of another’s paren-tal rights, including custody and visitation rights. Theserights may arise by operation of law, by legally bindingagreement of the parties, or by court order.

The terms “international parental kidnapping” and“international child abduction” are used interchange-ably in this report and include both wrongful remov-als and retentions of children. The “abduction” itselfmay range from a taking employing violence, falseidentifiers, and altered appearances, to the retainingof a child after a period of lawful custody or visita-tion. These cases typically involve the wrongful re-moval or retention of a child by a parent in derogationof the other parent’s parental rights. However, theymay also involve takings or retentions by parents orother family members in violation of custody rightsexercised by nonfamily members, such as lawfulguardians or State agencies.

International abductions or retentions often involvedual nationals, i.e., a parent who is a citizen of boththe United States and another country. The childmay also be a dual national. Further, it is commonfor abductions or retentions to occur before custodyhas been decided by a court or even before a divorceor custody proceeding is underway.

It is important to note that no two cases of interna-tional parental kidnapping are identical. Just ascases differ, so will appropriate and effective re-sponses. What is appropriate for one case may be

counterproductive in another. The challenge is touse the right combination of private and publicresources to achieve a satisfactory resolution.

Parental Kidnapping VictimsAn abducted or wrongfully retained child is a victim,as are those whose parental rights are obstructed.The victim child is wrested from a familiar life, cutoff from one parent, and thrust involuntarily into anew reality. Abductions take an emotional toll on allinvolved.

Practical problem: Left-behind parents often lack the re-sources to obtain counseling for themselves and their chil-dren. See section 2, gap 9 and recommendation 9.6.2 Also seegap 8, recognizing the extreme stress left-behind parentsmay experience, and recommendation 8.2, calling for sensi-tivity training for agency personnel who interact with left-behind parents and training on crime victims’ rights.

Scope of the Problem“Outgoing” cases involve children wrongfully re-moved from the United States and taken to orwrongfully retained in a foreign country. In calendaryear 1998, the Department of State had a caseloadof 503 new outgoing cases, for a total caseload ofapproximately 1,100 outgoing international childabduction cases. (Each outgoing “case” representsone child.) Just under half (49 percent) involvedremovals to or retentions in countries that are partyto the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects ofInternational Child Abduction (Hague Convention),discussed below. The actual number of outgoing

Current Federal Responses to InternationalParental Kidnapping

2 Gaps and recommendations referred to in this section appearin section 2, “Improving Federal Responses to InternationalParental Kidnapping.”

20

cases is unknown because some parents never con-tact the Department, but instead go directly to theforeign central authority for the Hague Conventionor to the courts abroad.

“Incoming” cases involve children wrongfully re-moved from other countries and taken to or wrong-fully retained in the United States. In 1998 therewere 241 new incoming cases involving the HagueConvention. (Each incoming case represents a “fam-ily group,” i.e., one or more children.) Over the 3-year period that the Department of State has hadthe National Center for Missing and Exploited Chil-dren (NCMEC) handle incoming cases on its be-half, the organization has processed 1,002 incomingHague applications. Data on the number of abduc-tions from non-Hague countries to the United Statesare not available.

Practical problem: The total number of international parentalkidnapping cases is not known. Although some entities, includ-ing the Office of Children’s Issues (OCI) and NCMEC in theDepartment of State, collect data on international parentalkidnapping cases, there is no governmentwide, systematic,integrated process to gather and analyze data. Such a systemwould serve a variety of purposes, which are described in gap2 and accompanying recommendations.

Overview of the Legal ResponsePrivate international law (i.e., legal recourse thatprivate parties such as left-behind parents pursueas the party in interest), facilitated by the FederalGovernment, provides for the recovery of childreninternationally. Any given effort to recover a childinternationally may call upon public and privateresources, as well as Federal, State, and local au-thorities. As to the wrongdoer, every State, territory,and the Federal Government criminalizes the abduc-tion or wrongful retention of a child by his or herparent. In a particular case, any combination of in-formal, formal, civil, or criminal means may be thebest course both to recover a child and to serve theends of justice.

When a child is removed from the United States andwrongfully taken to or kept in another country, twodistinct processes exist—one to return the child and

the other to pursue the abductor. Civil legal rem-edies facilitate the child’s return. Once a child hasbeen abducted, child recovery is a private civil legalmatter between the parties involved under the lawsof the country in which the child is currently lo-cated. Fortunately, a number of countries havejoined the Hague Convention and thereby incorpo-rated into their own domestic law the Convention’sprecepts for the return of internationally abductedchildren. The Convention seeks to protect childrenfrom the harmful effects of international abductionby establishing private civil legal mechanisms topursue an abducted child’s prompt return to his orher country of habitual residence. The Hague Con-vention is the primary mechanism preferred underU.S. law for the recovery of children abducted inter-nationally. It is administered by the Department ofState and discussed below.

In countries not party to the Hague Convention,child recovery is effected through private lawsuitsunder the laws of the country in which the child islocated. Parents generally retain lawyers in the for-eign country as well as in the United States to repre-sent them and assist with the proceedings.

Criminal prosecution, in conjunction with interna-tional extradition, can address the perpetrator. Thedecision to charge a crime rests solely with the pros-ecutor and is made on a case-by-case basis. Not ev-ery abduction or wrongful retention is charged as acrime. State and Federal criminal parental kidnap-ping laws target wrongdoers; they do not addresschild recovery. Although a child may be located inthe course of a criminal investigation of an abductingparent and may in fact be recovered as a byproductof the criminal process, those left behind cannot relyupon the criminal process for a child’s return. Aparent must be prepared to pursue civil means tolocate and recover a child simultaneously with theprosecutor’s pursuit of extradition and criminalprosecution of the abductor. Parents should beaware that in some situations pursuing criminal pro-ceedings against the abductor may diminish thechance of child recovery. A list of civil and criminallaws that may apply in cases of international paren-tal kidnapping appears in appendix 2.

21

Part 1. Outgoing Cases

Prevention“In international parental child abduction, an ounceof prevention is worth a pound of cure.” So statesthe Department of State’s International Parental ChildAbduction booklet, and for good reason. The FederalGovernment has limited power to respond to inter-national abductions once the abductor and childreach a foreign country.

Preventing the abduction of a child from this countryis largely accomplished at the local level at the initia-tive of a parent. A local law enforcement officer orprosecutor, at the request of a concerned parent, maybe able to deter an abduction by contacting and advis-ing a potential abductor of the criminal consequencesof parental kidnapping. State court judges can be in-strumental in safeguarding against abductions throughspecific provisions they include in custody orders.

The Federal Government is involved in many aspectsof prevention of international parental child abduc-tion, including education of family court judges, attor-neys, and parents; and interdiction at the border andelsewhere. The Department of State may also denyissuance of a child’s U.S. passport and revoke previ-ously issued U.S. passports of abductors who are thesubjects of Federal criminal warrants.

It is important to note, however, that U.S. passportcontrols may not deter an abductor. The vast major-ity of abductors are citizens of the country to whichthey are returning and therefore their children—although they may be U.S. citizens—may also becitizens of that other country. If dual nationals, thesechildren are eligible for passports of both the UnitedStates and the other country of nationality. The Of-fice of Children’s Issues at the Department of Stateprovides extensive prevention materials for parents,which underscore the importance of preventing ab-duction given the difficulties posed by dual national-ity and foreign sovereignty once the child is abroad.

At the Local Level

Law Enforcement Intervention

If abduction threats have been made or can be in-ferred from the other parent’s conduct (for example,

quitting a job, selling property, closing bank ac-counts, requesting a child’s school records or birthcertificate, or contacting relatives in another countrywith unusual frequency), a concerned parent mayask a local law enforcement officer or prosecutor tocontact a likely abductor to explain that parentalkidnapping is a crime. This may put a stop to anabduction in the planning stages.

Court-Ordered Prevention Measures

Judges should include prevention provisions in cus-tody orders when there is a risk of internationalabduction. Strict measures are needed if there is astrong likelihood of abduction, if the child is likelyto suffer serious harm, or if the left-behind parentwould face many obstacles in seeking to recover thechild from abroad. Provisions should be tailored toidentified objectives.

A variety of provisions, alone or in combination,may limit the risk of removal from the United States.These include prohibitions on visitation beyond aspecified geographical area, restrictions on the re-moval of a child from the United States, supervisedvisitation, surrender of passports and other traveldocuments prior to visits, a substantial bond, andnotification to the foreign embassy. If an order al-lows for visitation in another country, it may condi-tion such visits on a substantial bond, purchase ofroundtrip airline tickets, entry of an order in theforeign court containing custody and visitation pro-visions identical to those in the U.S. order (a “mirrorimage order”), and the provision of names and ad-dresses of all relatives living abroad.

At the Federal Level

Prevention Packets

The Office of Children’s Issues offers comprehen-sive prevention packets to parents who fear thattheir children may be abducted abroad. OCI hasHague and non-Hague prevention packets. Bothpackets contain extensive information, including theOCI booklet, “International Parental Child Abduc-tion”; a prevention flyer; a list of countries party tothe Hague Convention; texts of the Hague Conven-tion, the International Child Abduction RemediesAct, and the International Parental Kidnapping

22

Crime Act; materials written by the American BarAssociation; and various articles by private practition-ers and judges.

These packets are also supplemented with additionalcountry-specific information as appropriate, includ-ing 19 country-specific child custody flyers; a flyeron Islamic family law; and a flyer on passport issu-ance in child custody cases. Also available for parentsare 25 country-specific flyers on judicial assistanceabroad; flyers explaining how to obtain evidenceabroad, the service of process abroad, enforcement ofjudgments abroad, authentication of documents foruse abroad, and dual nationality; and Consular Infor-mation Sheets and attorney lists for every country ofthe world. These flyers are also available at the De-partment of State Web site, www.travel.state.gov.

This information is often helpful to parents in sup-porting requests for preventive measures in custodyorders. These flyers educate attorneys, parents, andjudges about child abduction and the obstacles par-ents face in recovering children from abroad, particu-larly when the child is a dual national or when thecountry to which the child is taken is not party to theHague Convention. OCI also drafts case-specificletters to parents addressing particular issues of con-cern.

NCMEC is also involved in prevention efforts, field-ing prevention calls through its toll-free telephonenumber and providing requesting parents and attor-neys with a prevention packet containing relevantinformation.

Passport Issuance and Denials

Flagging applications for U.S. passports. As a gen-eral rule, either parent may request U.S. passportinformation about his or her minor child from the De-partment of State. If a parent fears that a child mightbe taken abroad by the other parent without the mu-tual consent of both parents, that parent ordinarily canrequest that the child’s name be put in the U.S. pass-port namecheck system. Then, if an application is re-ceived, the requesting parent will be informed beforeissuance of the passport.

Denying issuance of a child’s U.S. passport. TheU.S. Department of State may deny a child a U.S.

passport if the concerned parent has provided thePassport Office with an order from a court of compe-tent jurisdiction, which either grants that parent solecustody or which, in effect, forbids the child’s travelwithout the consent of both parents or the court.

This process does not apply to the issuance of pass-ports by other countries. A child who has or mayhave citizenship in another country (which couldhappen if one parent is a foreign national) may beeligible to hold or be included in a foreign passport,in addition to a U.S. passport. The concerned parentmay contact the embassy of the other country forinformation and assistance.

Revoking a child’s passport. Current practice doesnot include revocation of minors’ passports on thebasis of a custody dispute or court order, and cur-rent regulations do not provide for such revocationin all cases of concern. Courts can reduce the likeli-hood of flight by ordering a parent to surrender achild’s passport for safekeeping.

Denying or revoking an abductor’s passport. TheDepartment of State can take revocation actionagainst the abductor. A request to deny or revoke apassport may be a useful tool in limiting the move-ment of a fugitive who is a U.S. citizen only. How-ever, revocation or denial of a passport does notguarantee the return of the abductor or the child.

Requests for denial or revocation of a U.S. citizen’spassport must come from Federal law enforcementauthorities, i.e., the FBI, U.S. Attorney, or the Depart-ment of Justice. The Department of State will notaccept such requests from private individuals or attor-neys. Denial and revocation actions against U.S. citi-zens are protected by the Privacy Act. The StateDepartment can discuss such actions with law enforce-ment authorities only, not with left-behind parents.

Limitations. Revocation or denial of a passport to aparent is not a foolproof method to prevent an ab-duction. In the case of a dual national parent, revo-cation or denial of a U.S. passport does not affectthe ability of that parent to obtain or retain traveldocuments from his or her other country of nationality.As in the case of the dual national child, a request canbe made to the foreign embassy or consulate for reci-procity, but there is no international law obligation to

23

cooperate, and there may be limitations under theforeign domestic law.

Entry controls: Denying visas. If a consular officerabroad has reason to believe that an alien may beproceeding to the United States in order to abduct achild or cause harm to a family member, that officermay deny a visa to the alien or revoke any existingvisa under section 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act. The law makes inadmis-sible any alien whom the consular officer has reasonto believe is seeking to enter the United States forthe purpose of engaging in unlawful activity.

Departure controls. Section 215 of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1185) could conceiv-ably be used to prevent an abductor who is an alienfrom leaving the United States with a child, althoughit is not presently used for this purpose. The law andimplementing regulations (8 CFR Part 215 and 22CFR Part 46) authorize departure-control officers toprevent an alien’s departure from the United States ifthe alien’s departure would be prejudicial to the inter-ests of the United States. These regulations should beamended if a decision is made to attempt to use sec-tion 215 to prevent child abductions.

Entry-exit control system. The Illegal ImmigrationReform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996(section 110, Public Law 104–208; 8 U.S.C. 1221note) requires the development of an automated entry-exit control system for aliens entering and departingthe United States at airports in the United States notlater than October 15, 1998 (this deadline has sincebeen extended), and at land and sea ports of entry notlater than March 31, 2001. This system will collect arecord of departure for every alien leaving the UnitedStates and match it with records of the alien’s arrival inthe United States. Tracking the inbound and outboundtravel of aliens may help to identify and stop abductorsas they attempt to enter or leave the United States.

Practical problems:

◆ Prevention measures are effective only if they are used. Aconcerted effort must be made to alert parents, lawyers,judges, and law enforcement about the steps that can betaken to safeguard against international abductions. Seegap 7, recommendation 7.2.1; gap 8, recommendations8.2 and 8.3.

◆ Currently, a concerned parent seeking to prevent theabduction of his or her dual national child bears theburden of informing the relevant foreign governmentabout measures taken by the U.S. Passport Office, in theDepartment of State, either denying issuance of a pass-port for the child or flagging any passport application forthe child. The Department of State should notify theappropriate foreign government when it denies a passportfor a dual national child or places such a child in itsnamecheck system. See gap 7, recommendation 7.2.2.

◆ A child’s passport is not subject to revocation on the basisof a custody dispute or court order under current practice.The ability to revoke a child’s passport may be helpful insecuring return to this country of a U.S. citizen child whois abducted to a non-Hague country. Upon revocation ofthe passport, such a child might be undocumented andtherefore subject to return by the foreign government.See gap 7, recommendation 7.2.3.

Locating Abducted Children andTheir AbductorsBoth non-law enforcement and criminal justice au-thorities may assist those left behind in locating achild. The location of an abducted or wrongfullyretained child often is known by those left behind.In some cases, however, those left behind may needassistance in locating or confirming the location ofa child. In Hague cases, the relevant central author-ity must make efforts to locate or to confirm thelocation of a child. In addition, abducted childrenmay be found during the course of a criminal inves-tigation focused on the abductor; certain searchtools are available only within the context of a crimi-nal investigation of the abductor. What follows isa description of Federal agencies and tools thatmay be involved in a search for a child, an abductor,or both.

National Crime Information Center

Local, State, and Federal criminal justice agenciesthroughout the United States can use the FederalBureau of Investigation’s vast National CrimeInformation Center (NCIC) database of records(including missing persons, wanted persons, andvehicles) to help locate the abductor and child.

24

Immediate Entry of a Child into the MissingPerson File

The Missing Children Act and the National ChildSearch Assistance Act, enacted in 1982 and 1990respectively (28 U.S.C. 534; 42 U.S.C. 5779 and5780), together require Federal, State, and local lawenforcement agencies to enter descriptions of miss-ing children into the NCIC Missing Person File(MPF) without any waiting period and withoutregard to whether a crime has been committed. Iflocal law enforcement fails to enter a valid case intoNCIC as required by law, the left-behind parentmay request assistance from the FBI. The FBI hasa concurrent mandate to make the entry, providedNCIC entry criteria are met. NCMEC can confirmentries into NCIC–MPF, but it does not have theauthority to make entries.

NCIC Entries on the Abductor: Wanted Person Fileand Vehicle File

Law enforcement should enter an abductor intothe NCIC Wanted Person File if the abductor ischarged with parental kidnapping under State orFederal law. The abductor’s vehicle should be en-tered in the NCIC Vehicle File.

Practical problem: Law enforcement needs training to en-sure the timely, complete, and correct entry of all appropri-ate NCIC records when international abductions occur. Seegap 6 and accompanying recommendations.

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues

OCI, located in the Office of Overseas Citizens Ser-vices, Bureau of Consular Affairs of the U.S. De-partment of State, can assist, both directly andindirectly, in locating a U.S. citizen child and check-ing on the child’s welfare.

If a child is believed to be in a Hague Conventioncountry, OCI, as the U.S. Central Authority for theConvention, can request its foreign counterpart to“discover the whereabouts of a child who has beenwrongfully removed or retained.” (Art. 7(a), HagueConvention) The Convention requires the foreigncentral authority to take steps to locate the child.There need be neither a criminal warrant as to theabductor nor a custody order. A left-behind parentor the U.S. Central Authority can also ask the

foreign central authority to report on the child’scondition.

Welfare and Whereabouts Visits for U.S.Citizens Abroad

In Hague and non-Hague countries, OCI or a left-behind parent may request a consular officer in theU.S. Embassy or consulate to conduct a welfare andwhereabouts check on a U.S. citizen child (includinga dual national). The Embassy works with local au-thorities to locate the child. A consular officer thenattempts to visit the child and report back on his orher condition. If an abducted child is a national onlyof the country to which she or he has been taken (andnot also a U.S. citizen), the embassy of that countryshould be contacted for assistance.

The abductor may refuse to allow U.S. authorities tovisit the child and/or to disclose the child’s foreignaddress to the left-behind parent. If the abductor willnot permit the consular officer to see the child, theU.S. Embassy or consulate can request the assistanceof local authorities, either to arrange for such a visitor to have the appropriate local official make a visitand provide a report on the child’s health and welfare.

Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service

The Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) CriminalInvestigative Liaison Branch serves as the primarycontact for law enforcement seeking assistance fromRegional Security Officers (DSS–RSO). In manycountries, the DSS–RSO is the sole representativeof U.S. law enforcement physically located in thecountry. In conjunction with efforts by OCI, theDSS–RSO at the U.S. Embassy abroad may requestthat foreign police contacts ascertain the child’s loca-tion, whether or not there is a warrant for the ab-ductor, and the location of the abductor when thereis a criminal investigation.

INTERPOL–U.S. National Central Bureau

INTERPOL is a 178-nation police communicationsnetwork that enables police forces around the worldto coordinate international criminal investigationsand to exchange humanitarian information, such asmissing persons inquiries. Each of INTERPOL’smember countries maintains a national central bureau

25

(NCB) to serve as the country’s point of contact withthe international law enforcement community. In thiscountry, the INTERPOL–U.S. National CentralBureau (INTERPOL–USNCB, or USNCB) is anoffice within the Department of Justice.

The USNCB serves Federal, State, and local lawenforcement, as well as its foreign police counter-parts. The USNCB and almost all INTERPOLnational central bureaus operate 24 hours per day,7 days per week, 365 days per year. They communi-cate with one another only at the request of law en-forcement, using a dedicated telecommunicationssystem or, in some instances, telefax. INTERPOLnational central bureaus may also communicate bytelephone in urgent circumstances, such as attemptsto stop an abduction in progress.

Specifically, the USNCB can at any time transmitimmediate, text-only messages, called “diffusions,”to one or any number of other national central bu-reaus, asking police authorities of each recipientcountry (1) to search for a fugitive charged with acrime carrying more than 1 year’s imprisonment,whom the prosecutor is willing to extradite; (2) totrace and locate an abductor, whether or notcharged with a crime; and/or (3) to locate and ascer-tain the safety and welfare of a missing or abductedchild. Diffusions may also inform foreign authoritiesof any medical conditions that a child may have orany particular danger to the child and/or ask that anabducted child be placed into protective custody.

Any national central bureau may in addition apply toINTERPOL headquarters in Lyons, France, forcolor-coded notices. Each notice includes the subject’sidentification, photograph, and (if available) finger-prints, in addition to case information. INTERPOLheadquarters translates notices into four languagesand sends them to all 178 INTERPOL members. Theprocess takes at least several months.

Red (fugitive) notices seek persons wanted for extra-dition. A red notice requires a State or Federal arrestwarrant for at least one crime that carries more than1 year’s imprisonment, plus the prosecutor’s writtenagreement to extradite the fugitive (generally, fromany country that can extradite the fugitive to theUnited States for the crime in question). A red noticeasks police in all INTERPOL member countries to

locate the fugitive and, if permissible under the law ofthe country in question, to detain or even arrest thefugitive for a limited period so that the seeking coun-try can make a formal request for extradition throughthe prescribed channel.

Blue (trace and locate) notices seek persons, includ-ing abductors, whether or not they have beencharged with any crime. Yellow (missing person)notices seek missing persons, including abductedchildren. It is possible to request a yellow notice onan abducted child and a red or blue notice on theabductor. Whether to request a diffusion and/ornotice in any given case is a decision for law en-forcement and the prosecutor.

Each foreign law enforcement authority handles allINTERPOL diffusions and INTERPOL noticesthat it receives according to its country’s law andpractice. The USNCB has no authority whatsoeverover how a foreign country handles INTERPOLcommunications. The USNCB, however, promptlyconveys any response it receives to the relevant U.S.authorities. This includes responses received bytelephone during abductions in progress.

Practical problems:

◆ INTERPOL is underutilized by law enforcement ininternational parental kidnapping cases. Federal, State,and local law enforcement could make significantlygreater use of INTERPOL as to abductions in progressand completed abductions. INTERPOL’s communica-tions network may facilitate the interception of an urgentmatter or the resolution of a longstanding one. Law en-forcement needs training on immediate responses follow-ing an abduction, as well as on completed abductions,including contacting INTERPOL for appropriate assis-tance. See gap 6 and accompanying recommendations.

◆ The USNCB needs additional resources to support itsefforts in halting and in locating fugitives and abductedchildren.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI is the law enforcement agency tasked withinvestigating international parental kidnapping casesunder Federal law. The FBI may discover the where-abouts of an abducted child when assisting Stateauthorities in locating a fugitive or when conducting

26

its own criminal investigation of an international kid-napping matter. If an abductor is in another country, theFBI Legal Attache (Legat) stationed at the U.S. Em-bassy abroad may request assistance from local lawenforcement in that country either to locate or to con-firm a location as to the abductor and child. Althoughthe FBI will not divulge criminal investigative infor-mation to the left-behind parent, the case agent maynotify the parent if the child is found so that the par-ent can pursue appropriate civil remedies to securethe child’s lawful return.

Practical problems:

◆ When international parental kidnappings occur, promptlaw enforcement response may result in intercepting anabduction in progress and/or may incidentally help tolocate an abducted child. FBI agents should continue toreceive training on the agency’s responsibilities in interna-tional parental kidnapping to ensure effective responses inthese cases. See gap 8 and recommendation 8.2.1.

◆ Resources are needed to support FBI efforts in locatingabducted children.

U.S. Postal Service

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service can providechange-of-address information upon the request oflocal, State, or Federal law enforcement officersinvestigating an international child abduction case.

Federal Inspection Services Personnel at U.S.Ports of Entry: U.S. Customs Service andImmigration and Naturalization Service

Federal inspectors from the U.S. Customs Service(Customs), the Immigration and NaturalizationService (INS), and other Federal agencies comprisethe Federal Inspection Service (FIS). Customs andINS inspectors are cross-designated to carry outtheir respective responsibilities at land borders.They are referred to collectively as “Federal inspec-tion services” (FIS) personnel.

Customs inspectors have legal authority to checkpersons entering and leaving the United States formerchandise and contraband. They may stop vehiclesat the border and board vessels and aircraft without awarrant in order to perform inspections. They workside-by-side with INS inspectors, who play a gate-

keeper role at designated air, land, and sea ports ofentry to guard against the illegal entry of aliens. INSinspectors may question any person coming into theUnited States to determine his or her admissibility.

FIS personnel use the Interagency Border Inspec-tion System (IBIS) to check the status of those en-tering and sometimes of those leaving the country.IBIS is an online system that links various Federalagency databases—including NCIC, the INS Na-tional Alien Lookout System (NAILS), and the De-partment of State Consular Lookout and SupportSystem (CLASS)—to streamline inquiries as tocritical information checked at U.S. ports of entry.

IBIS is critical to stopping an abduction at a U.S.border or international airport, as an IBIS querywill reveal NCIC records and lookouts placed inIBIS by the FBI, INTERPOL, or other Federal lawenforcement agencies, any of which may result inlocating an abductor and child as they attempt toleave or reenter the country.

Practical problem: Heightened awareness on the part ofborder personnel could potentially result in stopping moreincoming and outgoing abductions. Training for FIS per-sonnel on how to recognize and respond to internationalabduction cases should be provided. See gap 7 and recom-mendations 7.1 and 8.2.1.

Defense Department Legal Assistance Officesand Worldwide Military Locator Services

When children are abducted from the United Statesby a member of the armed services or family mem-ber accompanying the service member, the LegalAssistance Office for the particular branch of theservice can help find the child by providing informa-tion on the service member’s location. Location in-formation on service members can also be obtainedby family members and by State and Federal agen-cies from the Military Worldwide Locator Servicesfor each service branch.

Federal Parent Locator Service

Pursuant to the Parental Kidnapping PreventionAct of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 663), “authorized persons”may request address information on abductors andabducted children from the Federal Parent LocatorService (FPLS), for purposes of making or enforc-

27

ing child custody determinations and for enforcingState or Federal criminal parental kidnapping law.Authorized persons are the U.S. Central Authorityand OJJDP for Hague cases; any agent or attorneyof any State with the duty or authority under Statelaw to enforce child custody determinations; courts(or their agents) with jurisdiction to make or enforcea child custody determination; and Federal andState attorneys authorized to investigate, enforce, orprosecute the unlawful taking or restraint of a child.Federal prosecutors and FBI agents may submitlocation requests directly to FPLS. Authorized Stateand local authorities may submit requests to therelevant State Parent Locator Service, which for-wards them to FPLS.

National Center for Missing andExploited Children

The Missing Children’s Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.5771 et seq.) directs OJJDP to address the problemof missing and exploited children by, among otherthings, establishing a toll-free telephone line to re-ceive reports of missing children; establishing andoperating a national clearinghouse of informationabout missing and exploited children; and providingtechnical assistance to law enforcement agencies,nonprofit agencies, and families to help locate andrecover missing children. OJJDP provides fundingto NCMEC to fulfill the Act’s requirements. NCMECis not a Federal agency or instrumentality. It is an in-dependent nonprofit organization.

Since its establishment in 1984, NCMEC has had asignificant impact on how the criminal justice com-munity responds to stranger abductions and inter-state and international parental kidnapping cases.NCMEC has been successful in locating missingchildren around the world. NCMEC’s Web site,www.missingkids.com, posts pictures of missing chil-dren that may be accessed anywhere in the world.NCMEC is currently partnering with police agen-cies around the world to place their photos of miss-ing children on the NCMEC site.

Practical problem: NCMEC’s role in international parentalkidnapping cases in relation to the various Federal agenciesis neither fully developed nor clearly delineated. Federalagencies have an interest in defining an expanded role forNCMEC in outgoing cases, particularly on behalf of left-

behind parents and other interested parties. See gap 1, rec-ommendations 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 8.4, and 9.6; and Issues forFurther Study, 6.

Missing and Exploited Children’sProgram Web Site

OJJDP’s Missing and Exploited Children’s Pro-gram (MECP) Web site, www.ncjrs.org/ojjdp/missing/index.html, offers practical information to parentsand law enforcement in connection with parentalkidnapping and missing children cases.

Practical problem: Many different Federal agencies arepotentially involved in international parental kidnappingsituations. However, although a network exists among Fed-eral officials who regularly work these cases, there are nodesignated Federal points of contact for left-behind parentsor law enforcement to refer them to appropriate agencies forhelp. See gap 1 and accompanying recommendations.

Civil Remedies to Recover theAbducted Child

Mechanisms for Child Recovery

Hague Convention Remedy

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of In-ternational Child Abduction provides the legal basisto seek the prompt return of children wrongfullyremoved to or retained in countries that are party tothe Convention. The Convention took effect in theUnited States in 1988 following enactment of theInternational Child Abduction Remedies Act(ICARA) (42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq.), which estab-lishes procedures for its implementation in thiscountry. The Department of State, Office ofChildren’s Issues is the U.S. Central Authority forthe Hague Convention.

Fifty-four countries have become party to the Con-vention, with the expectation that others will join inthe future. As of March 1999, the Convention is inforce between the United States and 47 countries:Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize,Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Canada,China (Hong Kong Special Administrative Regiononly), Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Re-public, Denmark (except the Faroe Islands and

28

Greenland), Ecuador, Finland, the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece,Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy,Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Nether-lands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland,Portugal, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Slovenia,South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

When a child is removed from the United States andwrongfully taken to or kept in another Hague Con-vention country, the left-behind parent can use theConvention’s administrative and legal remedies toseek the return of and access to the child. The Con-vention provides an immediate right of action to seeka child’s prompt return to the country where he or shewas habitually resident prior to the abduction. Thepremise of the Hague Convention is that the ab-ducted child’s custody should be determined by acourt in the child’s country of habitual residence andnot by the unilateral actions of one parent. The goalis to restore the child to his or her home country forfurther custody proceedings in the courts there. Areturn order does not represent a decision regardingthe merits of custody. By denying abductors the op-portunity to litigate custody in their country of choiceand promptly restoring the child to his or her habitualresidence, the Convention is intended to deter abduc-tions from occurring in the first place. A key featureof the Convention is that a parent does not need acustody order to seek a child’s return. This is veryimportant because so many abductions occur beforea custody order has been issued.

Each country party to the Convention must establisha central authority to perform a variety of functions,including locating abducted children; facilitating thevoluntary return of abducted children; assisting,either directly or indirectly, in the institution of legalproceedings for the child’s return; and in some coun-tries, arranging legal assistance for the left-behindparent.

Help is available from the U.S. Central Authorityand from the central authority in the country inwhich the child is located or believed to be located.The U.S. Central Authority is the primary source ofinformation on the Hague Convention in the FederalGovernment. The U.S. Central Authority provides

left-behind parents with a copy of the applicationused to seek return of the child (or enjoyment ofaccess rights) under the Convention. Although theforeign central authority has primary responsibilityfor operation of the Convention in that country, theU.S. Central Authority serves as liaison to the for-eign central authority until the case is resolved. TheU.S. Central Authority does not act as an attorneyor agent on behalf of the applicant parent.

The person seeking the child’s return may file an ap-plication for return either with the U.S. Central Au-thority, which forwards the application to the foreigncentral authority, or directly with the foreign centralauthority. After filing the application, the applicant,usually through his or her attorney in the other coun-try, may need to bring a civil legal action for return ina court in the foreign country. (Left-behind parentsare not required to contact central authorities to in-voke the Convention. They may bypass both centralauthorities and file directly in a foreign court for re-turn of the child under the Convention.)

The Convention requires the court to order the child’sreturn forthwith if it finds the removal or retention tobe wrongful and less than 1 year has elapsed from thedate of the wrongful removal or retention to the datethe proceedings commenced. The Convention pro-vides limited exceptions to the return obligation, asfollows: (1) more than a year has elapsed and thechild is now settled in the new environment; (2) theperson seeking return did not actually exercise cus-tody rights or consented to or subsequently acqui-esced in the removal or retention; (3) there is a graverisk that return would expose the child to physical orpsychological harm or otherwise place the child in anintolerable situation; (4) a sufficiently mature childobjects to being returned; and (5) return would notbe permitted by the fundamental principles of therequested State relating to the protection of humanrights and fundamental freedoms. However, a courtretains discretion to order the child returned even ifone of these exceptions is proved.

The return process is meant to be expeditious. TheConvention requires countries party to it to use the“most expeditious” procedures available to implementit and requires judicial or administrative authorities toact “expeditiously” in proceedings for the return ofchildren. If a decision is not made within 6 weeks,

29

the applicant parent or the central authority of therequested country has the right to request a state-ment of the reasons for the delay. The U.S. CentralAuthority can initiate such inquiry through the cen-tral authority in the country in which return pro-ceedings are pending.

Practical problems:

◆ Implementation problems with respect to the Hague Con-vention, which have arisen in some countries, need to beaddressed. See gap 4 and accompanying recommendations.

◆ Although the Convention purports to ensure that rights ofaccess (visitation) may be exercised across internationalborders, in reality parents continue to face great difficultiesgaining access to their children who are in other countries.See gap 5 and accompanying recommendations.

Although it is probably the best remedy in interna-tional parental kidnapping cases, the Convention isnot the exclusive remedy in countries party to it.Left-behind parents also may seek a child’s returnunder foreign domestic law, as discussed below.

Non-Hague Convention Country Recovery

If a child is abducted from the United States to acountry that is not party to the Hague Convention,the parent can petition a court in that country toenforce a custody order made by a U.S. court. How-ever, Federal and State laws of this country thatgovern State court jurisdiction to make, modify, andenforce custody determinations—the Uniform ChildCustody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) (9 U.L.A.123(1988)) and the Parental Kidnapping PreventionAct (PKPA) (28 U.S.C. 1738A)—do not apply inother countries. Courts in other sovereign countriesapply their own family law. They are not legallybound to enforce custody orders made in the UnitedStates, although some may do so voluntarily as amatter of comity (i.e., the principle of reciprocityamong sovereigns).

If the foreign court refuses to honor the U.S. custodyorder, it may be necessary to file for custody in theforeign court under the laws and customs of thatcountry. In some countries the parent may encounterreligious laws and customs or biases based on genderor nationality that preclude an award of custody.

Recovery by Department of Defense Mechanisms

It is Department of Defense (DoD) policy, with dueregard for mission requirements, international agree-ments, and ongoing DoD investigations and courts-martial, to cooperate with courts and Federal, State,and local officials who request assistance in enforcingcourt orders relating to active-duty members of theArmed Forces (DoD members) and civilian employ-ees (DoD employees) stationed outside the UnitedStates, and family members who accompany them,who have been charged with or convicted of a felonyin a court, have been held in contempt by a court forfailure to obey the court’s order, or have been orderedto show cause why they should not be held in con-tempt for failing to obey the court’s order.

The policy and applicable procedures are set forth inDepartment of Defense Directive 5525.9, Compli-ance of DoD Members, Employees, and FamilyMembers Outside the United States With CourtOrders. The directive requires the head of the DoDcomponent concerned or a designee to attempt toresolve the matter to the satisfaction of the courtwithout the return of or other action affecting themember, employee, or family member (the subject).When that is not possible, the directive specifiesprocedures the DoD component head or designeemust follow with respect to the subject, unless anexception is granted. If a request pertains to a felonyor to contempt involving the unlawful or contemptu-ous removal of a child from the jurisdiction of acourt or the custody of a parent or other personawarded custody, the DoD component head ordesignee is required to order the DoD member toreturn expeditiously to the United States. DoDemployees and family members accompanying DoDmembers and employees are to be strongly encour-aged to comply with the court order. Adverse conse-quences may result for those who do not comply,including withdrawal of command sponsorship andpossible removal from Federal service.

Although the child is not the subject of a return or-der or other adverse action, the practical effect maybe the same. The child may return to the UnitedStates with the service member who is ordered backto the United States. Or the child may return withor be returned by a DoD member, employee, or

30

accompanying family member who stands to lose ajob, sacrifice benefits, or face other adverse conse-quences for noncompliance.

Practical problem: Participants in an international paren-tal abduction focus group cited problems enforcing custodyorders and recovering their children from parents connectedwith the U.S. military overseas. See Issues for FurtherStudy, 4.

Encouraging Returns Through Visa Denials

Section 212(a)(10)(C) of the Immigration and Na-tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)(C)), providingfor the denial of visas to certain international childabductors, is another statutory tool that may bringabout the return of an abducted child to the lawfulcustodian under U.S. law. This ground of denialprovides that any alien who detains, retains, or with-holds a child of U.S. citizenship outside the UnitedStates in violation of a U.S. custody order is inad-missible until the child is surrendered to the persongranted custody by that order. The exclusion doesnot apply if the child is located in a country that isparty to the Hague Convention. Thus, U.S. borderinspectors have authority to deny entry and U.S.consular officials abroad have authority to deny avisa to any alien parent who has abducted a childfrom the United States to a non-Hague country inviolation of a U.S. custody order until the alien sur-renders the child to the left-behind parent.

Effective October 21, 1998, section 212(a)(10)(C)also in certain circumstances makes an alien whointentionally assists or provides support to an alienabductor ineligible to enter the United States untilthe child is surrendered to the person granted cus-tody of the child. This section also does not applywhen children are in Hague countries.

Federal Role in Civil Child Recovery

Recovering a child who has been abducted from theUnited States or wrongfully retained in anothercountry is a daunting challenge for a left-behindparent. The Federal Government may facilitate theprocess in a number of ways, including helping tolocate the child, reporting on the child’s welfare,facilitating negotiations for voluntary return, helping

to find attorneys, providing country-specific infor-mation, facilitating legal proceedings abroad, inter-vening diplomatically, and facilitating travel back tothis country.

Welfare and Whereabouts

Finding the child is the first priority when the child’swhereabouts are unknown. Federal resources forlocating abducted children and checking on theirwelfare are described in Locating Abducted Chil-dren and Their Abductors, above.

Voluntary Return

The Hague Convention charges central authoritiesto take appropriate measures, directly or indirectly,“to secure the voluntary return of the child or tobring about an amicable resolution of the issues.”OCI and NCMEC, in both Hague and non-Haguecases, may facilitate negotiations between the dispu-tants and make arrangements for the child’s returnif negotiations succeed, but they may not representeither party. Family members, other nongovernmen-tal organizations such as Child Find, and sometimeslaw enforcement also may negotiate with an abduc-tor or between the disputants in order to effect areturn without litigation. A successful voluntaryreturn is the best possible result, because it providesthe best opportunity for the custody contestants toresolve their differences amicably.

Practical problem: Voluntary return of children is oftenelusive because few mechanisms exist to promote nonliti-gated solutions to international abduction and retentioncases. See recommendation 9.5.

Finding a Lawyer

Left-behind parents ordinarily seek the services ofan attorney to bring legal proceedings to recover thechild if efforts to secure voluntary return have beenor would be unproductive. This normally requiresfinding and retaining a lawyer in the foreign countrywho speaks English, is versed in family law, and hasaffordable fees. The Federal Government cannot actas a private lawyer for the left-behind parent seek-ing the return of an abducted child from anothercountry. However, the State Department, throughOCI, can help parents find lawyers abroad.

31

If a left-behind parent plans to bring legal proceed-ings under the Hague Convention to secure returnof the child, the foreign central authority may beresponsible to provide or to help the parent findcounsel. Unless the Hague country in which thechild is located has taken a reservation to the Con-vention regarding legal counsel, the applicant maybe eligible for free legal counsel provided by theforeign country, if he or she meets the foreigncountry’s eligibility standards. The U.S. CentralAuthority can query the foreign central authority asto the availability of counsel in that country for theapplicant parent in the United States.

In non-Hague cases (and in Hague cases in whichthe foreign government does not provide a lawyer),OCI can provide the left-behind parent with infor-mation on retaining a foreign attorney and a list,prepared by U.S. Embassies and consulates abroad,of attorneys in the foreign country who speak En-glish and have expressed a willingness to representU.S. citizens abroad. However, the attorneys on thelist do not necessarily have family law expertise.Nongovernmental sources of lawyer referrals (e.g.,the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers)are also available. The Legal Assistance Office foreach branch of the military also provides legal assis-tance to members of the U.S. armed services whosechildren are abducted.

Practical problem: Left-behind parents in this country oftenneed help in finding affordable, knowledgeable counsel inother countries and in paying for their services. See recom-mendations 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.3; gap 9 and recom-mendations 9.1 and 9.4.

Facilitating Legal Proceedings Abroad

Civil proceedings before courts in foreign countriesfor return of a child, whether pursuant to the HagueConvention or other law, are private internationallaw matters. As such, the Federal Government’s roleis limited to providing assistance to facilitate theprivate right of action. In Hague cases, the U.S.Central Authority assists in processing return appli-cations and reports on the status of return proceed-ings. Embassy consular officers assist when thereare communication problems with a foreign attor-ney, and they provide updates on cases pending in

the foreign country. OCI and consular officers alsoprovide general information on the customs andlegal practices in the country in which the child islocated and on procedures for serving process, ob-taining evidence, and authenticating documents foruse in that country.

Practical problem: Left-behind parents and their lawyerswould benefit from other services, including mentoring pro-grams (parent-to-parent and lawyer-to-lawyer), mediationprograms, and other efforts to resolve abduction and reten-tion disputes short of litigation. See recommendation 8.4;gap 9 and recommendations 9.5 and 9.6.

Diplomatic Initiatives

Part of the Department of State’s role as the chiefU.S. foreign affairs agency is protecting the wel-fare of all U.S. citizens abroad (including ab-ducted children) and seeking the fair and equaltreatment of U.S. citizens abroad (including par-ents seeking return of their abducted children).The Department of State uses a variety of diplo-matic initiatives to pursue U.S. interests abroad.These initiatives range from the negotiation ofinternational conventions and treaties to directactions in specific cases. These direct actions mayinclude diplomatic intervention at the highest lev-els, formal written diplomatic communicationssuch as diplomatic notes, or less formal communi-cations such as an exchange of letters. As notedabove, in Hague Convention cases, the establishedmechanism for return is a private civil action.Various forms of diplomatic action, however, canbe important to promote and improve implemen-tation of the Convention in order to foster thereturn of and access to children.

The Department of State attaches high priority toseeking participation in the Hague Convention bycountries not yet parties to that agreement and sys-tematically pursues outreach to countries that wouldmake good treaty partners.

Practical problems: Left-behind parents expect the U.S.Government to intercede directly with foreign governmentson their behalf to recover their children. When diplomaticaction is not taken, some may feel the Government has letthem down. Federal law and policy must be articulated andexplained to parents. In addition, the United States should

32

undertake further bilateral and multilateral efforts to im-prove operation of the Hague Convention, promote its adop-tion by select countries, and develop better solutions innon-Hague countries when international custody and visita-tion disputes occur. See gap 3 and accompanying recommen-dations; gap 5.

Facilitating a Child’s Return to the United States

The Federal Government can help remove obstaclesthat stand in the way of returning abducted childrento this country.

Travel documents. If the child is a U.S. citizen butlacks a passport, the U.S. Embassy abroad may is-sue a passport on an urgent basis to prevent delay inreturning the child to the United States.

Transportation costs. Transportation expenses maybe prohibitive for many left-behind parents whobear the cost of the child’s return. The Hague Con-vention does not require countries to pay these ex-penses. Federal victim assistance funds may beavailable to cover some or all of these expenses incriminal cases. NCMEC, through a grant from theJustice Department’s Office for Victims of Crime, isable to provide parents who meet needs-based criteriafinancial assistance to attend court hearings in for-eign countries or for transportation costs for U.S.citizen children to return to the United States.

Practical problem: In a word, money. Left-behind parents incurexpenses, often beyond their means, seeking recovery of theirabducted children. See gap 9, recommendations 9.1 and 9.4.

Repatriation loans. The U.S. Embassy abroad canarrange repatriation loans for U.S. citizens meetingneeds-based eligibility criteria. Repatriation loansmust be repaid. The foreign government may offersimilar loan programs to its nationals.

Practical problem: See Transportation costs, above.

Significant public benefit parole. A “parole” withinthe immigration context permits an alien to enter theUnited States for a particular purpose when the alienwould otherwise be ineligible under U.S. law to enterthe country. Either the abductor or the child, if not aU.S. citizen, may require a parole to enter the UnitedStates. Courts in some Hague Convention proceed-ings have been reluctant to order a child returned

under the Convention when the abducting parentcannot enter the United States under U.S. immigra-tion laws and is therefore unable to return to thiscountry to participate in custody proceedings.

When these concerns arise (e.g., after the abductoris denied a visa by the U.S. Embassy or consulate),the foreign government may request that a parole begranted for the abductor for purposes of participat-ing in custody or related proceedings in a U.S.court. The Department of State’s Visa Office sub-mits the request for Significant Public Benefit Pa-role to the Immigration and Naturalization Service,Parole Unit, which adjudicates the parole request.

In addition to the possibility of parole for an ineligiblealien, there is also the possibility of a waiver of visaineligibility pursuant to section 212(d)(3)(A) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182 (d)(3)(A)).A waiver would require the recommendation of theconsular officer or the Department of State (Bureauof Consular Affairs/Visa Office) and the approval ofthe Attorney General (INS).

Stopping an Abduction in Progress: Interceptingthe Child

It may be possible to recover a child by stopping anabduction in progress at a land border or airport inthe United States or as the child enters, leaves, ortransits another country. Successful interdictionusually depends upon there being a criminal warrantor investigation in connection with the abductor.Foreign governments may be responsive to a Hagueapplication transmitted on an urgent basis, or theymay take other measures as to the welfare of thechild. (This is discussed in Criminal Prosecution andExtradition, below.)

Intercepting the child in the United States. In theUnited States, absent a criminal warrant or factssupporting probable cause to arrest, it is unlikelythat an abduction in progress can be stopped and achild intercepted. However, if a child is identified ata land border or at an airport in the United States asa result of an NCIC inquiry, FBI and FIS personnelmay detain the child at least temporarily, even ifthere is no criminal warrant for the abductor, pend-ing questioning of the suspected abductor to deter-mine whether the International Parental Kidnapping

33

Crime Act (IPKCA) or Fugitive Felon Act statute(discussed below) is being violated. If the personaccompanying the child is ultimately detained onthis basis, agents and inspectors may be able to de-tain the child temporarily until the relevant Stateauthorities arrive. If, upon further investigation, thefacts do not support a violation of IPKCA or theFugitive Felon Act by the person accompanying thechild, there is no basis under Federal criminal law tocontinue to detain the child.

Intercepting the child abroad. The Department ofState, Office of Children’s Issues may request for-eign governments (in Hague and non-Hague coun-tries) to exercise any power they may have undertheir own domestic law to protect an abducted child.Foreign authorities may have discretion to arrest,admit, or deport an abductor and child at a foreignport of entry. Some foreign authorities will use theirdomestic police powers to act as to the child alone ifthey find a factual basis to believe the child is endan-gered without regard to whether the abductor issubject to a criminal arrest warrant.

In very rare instances, certain cooperative Haguecountries will intervene to take a child in transitwith an abductor into protective custody upon theurgent filing of a Hague application. When pursuingthis option, the Office of Children’s Issues at theDepartment of State takes the lead coordinatingwith the central authority in the destination countryand with law enforcement there as to itinerary andarrival times. Abductions in progress to or throughCanada reported to the Royal Canadian MountedPolice Missing Children’s Registry may be stoppedand the child intercepted.

Criminal Prosecution and ExtraditionAll 50 States, the District of Columbia, the territories,the Federal Government, and many foreign govern-ments recognize the abduction of a child by his or herparent as a “serious crime,” subject to penalties inexcess of 1 year in prison. A State or Federal criminalprosecution, coupled with international extradition,addresses the perpetrator. In appropriate cases, eitherState or Federal authorities may prosecute the abduc-tor. The FBI, with its jurisdiction over both interstateflight and the Federal international parental kidnap-ping statute, may be contacted immediately in any

matter involving a parental abduction from theUnited States. Either a State prosecution facilitatedby Federal efforts or a direct Federal prosecutionmay serve as a basis for the international extraditionof the abductor. The facts of the case and any relevantextradition treaty may indicate that State or Federalprosecution is preferable.

When the facts of an international parental abductionwarrant criminal process, the left-behind parent stillmust ensure that civil efforts to locate and recover thechild go forward as expeditiously as possible. Crimi-nal prosecution (and the attendant investigation) mayincidentally locate the child, but the arrest, extradi-tion, prosecution, and incarceration of the abductorwill not necessarily result in the child’s recovery. Insome cases, criminal process may frustrate child re-covery, particularly in Hague countries.

State Law Prosecution, Assisted by Federal Law

Federal authorities can assist State criminal investi-gations and prosecutions in locating the fugitive andfacilitating international extradition. With this assis-tance, State law is usually sufficient to address thecriminal aspects of an international parental kidnap-ping and to seek international extradition. Stateprosecutors are not obliged to seek FBI assistance,but they must contact the Department of Justice,Office of International Affairs (OIA) for assistanceregarding international extradition. State and localprosecutors may consult with the American Pros-ecutors Research Institute for information concern-ing the investigation and prosecution of parentalkidnapping crimes, developed under a grant fromOJJDP.

Fugitive Felon Act: Unlawful Flight to AvoidProsecution Warrants

The Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073) is a Fed-eral statute in aid of State prosecution. It enhancesthe ability of States to pursue abductors beyondState and national borders. Because it permits theFBI to investigate an otherwise State case, it alsomay facilitate investigation internationally. In addi-tion, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (18U.S.C. 1073 note) clarifies congressional intent thatFederal fugitive felony warrants (i.e., unauthorizedflight to avoid prosecution, or UFAP warrants) may

34

be issued in parental kidnapping cases when theabductor has fled the State or this country to avoidprosecution under applicable State felony statutes.

The local or State prosecutor requests a UFAP war-rant in writing from a Federal prosecutor (UnitedStates Attorney) or the FBI. The requirements forobtaining a UFAP warrant in parental kidnappingcases are the same as in other fugitive felony cases: (1)existence of a State or local felony warrant; (2) prob-able cause to believe the fugitive has fled the jurisdic-tion of the State in order to avoid prosecution orconfinement; and (3) assurance that the State or localprosecutor will extradite the fugitive for prosecution.If satisfied these requirements are met, the UnitedStates Attorney may authorize the FBI agent assignedto the case to file a request for a Federal UFAP war-rant with the U.S. District (i.e., Federal) court.

The focus in UFAP matters is to locate and appre-hend the abductor for a criminal law violation. Ifagents discover during a UFAP investigation that theabductor has left the country with the child, the FBImay be able to continue its investigation internation-ally by requesting the assistance of law enforcementauthorities in one or more countries. In addition, ifFBI agents discover the child’s whereabouts duringthe course of their efforts to locate and apprehend theabductor, they may be authorized to alert local childwelfare authorities and left-behind parents so thatthey can pursue recovery of the child.

Federal Prosecution Under the InternationalParental Kidnapping Crime Act

In 1993 Congress enacted the International ParentalKidnapping Crime Act (18 U.S.C. 1204). IPKCAmakes it a Federal felony to remove a child under 16from the United States or to retain a child outsidethe United States with the intent to obstruct thelawful exercise of parental rights. The statute de-fines parental rights as the right to physical custodyof the child (including visitation rights), whether theright is joint or sole and whether the right arises byoperation of law, court order, or legally bindingagreement of the parties. IPKCA provides affirma-tive defenses if the defendant: (1) was acting withinthe provisions of a valid custody or visitation order;(2) was fleeing an incidence or pattern of domesticviolence; or (3) failed to return the child due to cir-

cumstances beyond his or her control, notified ormade reasonable attempts to notify the other parentwithin 24 hours, and returned the child as soon aspossible. Violation of this statute is punishable byfine, up to 3 years’ imprisonment, or both.

IPKCA clearly establishes international parentalkidnapping as a crime. (See H.R. Rep. No. 103–390(1993).) The House Report articulates that IPKCAis intended to send a strong message to the interna-tional community that the United States views pa-rental kidnapping as a serious crime it will nottolerate. With the passage of IPKCA, Congresshoped to deter at least some abductions and enhancethe force of U.S. diplomatic representations in seek-ing the return of children, particularly from coun-tries not party to the Hague Convention.

The IPKCA statute expresses the sense of Congressthat the Hague Convention should be the option offirst choice for a parent seeking a child’s return incases in which the Hague Convention applies. Al-though IPKCA provides a criminal remedy in inter-national abduction cases, it is not intended to detractfrom the operation of the Hague Convention.

The FBI investigates IPKCA violations, usuallyfollowing a complaint by the left-behind parent. TheU.S. Attorney, usually in the district from which thechild was taken, may bring Federal charges afterweighing a number of factors. The initial requirementunder IPKCA—that Federal prosecutors seek ap-proval before bringing an IPKCA case—has expired.However, Federal prosecutors still may consult withand obtain information concerning the statute fromthe Department of Justice, Child Exploitation andObscenity Section. Federal prosecutors must seekassistance regarding international extradition fromthe Department of Justice, Office of InternationalAffairs. Because State charges assisted by Federalresources may be just as effective as Federal chargesin the international arena, pursuit of an IPKCAcharge may not be appropriate if State charges arealready pending. However, IPKCA may be the onlyavailable charging option if an abduction cannot becharged under State law (e.g., abductions occurringbefore the entry of a custody decree in States re-quiring violation of such orders for prosecution;abductions interfering with visitation rights not en-compassed by a State statute).

35

Practical problem: Many State and Federal prosecutorshave little or no experience with parental kidnapping pros-ecutions. Detailed guidance should be made available tothese attorneys and those who assist them. See gap 8, recom-mendations 8.2 and 8.2.1.

Charging Considerations in Criminal Cases

Abductions to Hague Countries

The decision to charge a parental kidnapping crimeunder State or Federal law must be made on a case-by-case basis, depending upon the facts of the caseand whether the child has been taken to or kept in aHague country.

The prosecutor must weigh countervailing consider-ations before seeking criminal charges in an abductionto a Hague Convention country. First, if criminalcharges are being considered, IPKCA expresses thesense of Congress that the Convention, if applicable, isthe preferred remedy for child recovery. Second,criminal charges under IPKCA (or any other State orFederal statute) may adversely affect return proceed-ings under the Hague Convention. An outstandingcriminal warrant may deter a voluntary or negotiatedreturn; in other cases the outstanding warrant may beuseful to locate and facilitate return of a child. InHague proceedings, some foreign judges have beenreluctant and others have refused to order a child’sreturn to the United States if the parent’s return wouldresult in his or her arrest and attendant inability toparticipate in civil custody proceedings.

On the other hand, use of State and Federal crimi-nal remedies may also be appropriate when abduc-tors violate Hague court orders and refuse to returnthe child.

Abductions to Non-Hague Countries

When a child is abducted to a non-Hague country,filing criminal charges against the abductor may beuseful in locating the abductor and child, but thecriminal process and extradition address only thealleged offender and do not assure the child’s return.Unfortunately, many countries not party to theHague Convention also do not recognize this type ofabduction or wrongful retention as a crime, makinginternational extradition unavailable. Although ex-

tradition from a given country may not be available,INTERPOL alerts of various kinds may facilitatethe detection of the abductor’s travel to other coun-tries from which extradition might be possible. As tothe child, left-behind parents should pursue effortsspecific to child recovery.

Imposition of Sentencing Conditions

When a State or Federal prosecutor secures a convic-tion against a defendant in a criminal internationalparental kidnapping case, it may be possible for theprosecutor to seek conditions in the sentence imposedas to the return of the child. The conviction of a fa-ther for the abduction of his three children to Egypt(a non-Hague country) under IPKCA, as well as thesentencing court’s imposition of a special conditionthat the father return the children to the UnitedStates, were upheld on appeal. (See United States v.Amer, 110 F.3d 873, 877 (2d Cir. 1997).) The imposi-tion of such conditions has proven ineffective to date;therefore, the imposition of such conditions must beconsidered on a case-by-case basis.

Federal Victim-Witness Assistance

The Federal Victims of Crime Act (42 U.S.C. 10607;18 U.S.C. 3509) provides for the rights of and ser-vices to victims of Federal crimes, including interna-tional parental kidnapping. The Attorney General’sGuidelines on Victim-Witness Assistance providesfurther direction for investigators, prosecutors, andvictim-advocates handling child victims and wit-nesses. Statutes require the investigating and pros-ecuting agencies to: (1) identify child victims of anoffense and provide the nonoffending parent orguardians with notice of their rights and the servicesfor which they may be eligible, including counseling,support, compensation, and restitution; and (2) notifyvictims of major events in the conduct of the cases.The use of a multidisciplinary team and appointmentof a guardian ad litem are encouraged in appropriatesituations. Congress mandates that all Federal agen-cies dealing with victims of Federal crime maintainand adhere to written guidelines consistent with Fed-eral law on victim-witness assistance. However, thedecision as to the release of sensitive case informationultimately rests with the prosecutor in conjunctionwith the Federal investigator.

36

Practical problem: All Federal agencies that deal with interna-tional parental kidnapping crime victims must become conver-sant with their responsibilities under Federal victim-witnessguidelines and regulations. See gap 8, recommendation 8.2.

Conduct of International Criminal Investigations

Those left behind, as well as State and local lawenforcement, may engage FBI assistance by contact-ing the local FBI field office. INTERPOL may alsofacilitate foreign police assistance. The FBI or theState investigator may request that INTERPOL–USNCB send appropriate messages on their behalf.

International Legal Assistance

Although police-to-police contacts may secure inves-tigative information, when the information soughtfrom another country requires a judicial order orother form of compulsion for its production, theState or Federal prosecutor must seek assistancefrom the foreign government via mutual legal assis-tance treaty or letters rogatory requests. The pros-ecutor may seek evidence, records, and testimony insupport of substantive charges or to locate the fugi-tive. These requests, sought through the Depart-ment of Justice, Office of International Affairs,although usually productive, may sometimes take avery long time, and in some countries may not beentirely productive. Further, seeking foreign infor-mation, e.g., foreign bank records, may result innotice to the fugitive. The lead prosecutor shoulddiscuss and pursue these issues and matters withthe country specialist from OIA.

Extradition

International extradition is a means to return theabductor to the United States for prosecution. TheDepartment of Justice, Office of International Af-fairs assists Federal and State prosecutors in theinternational extradition of fugitives. Both Federaland State prosecutors must contact OIA at the out-set of a case in which they intend to seek extradition.Federal and State prosecutors may seek to immobi-lize those charged with international extradition byseeking an urgent “provisional arrest with a viewtowards extradition” (often used in efforts to inter-cept an abduction). If the requested foreign govern-ment provisionally arrests the defendant, the United

States (by its prosecutor) must submit the full extra-dition request (including sufficient evidence) via theDepartment of State to the foreign governmentwithin the deadline provided by the applicable ex-tradition treaty. If an abductor’s further flight ap-pears unlikely, the prosecutors may omit theprovisional arrest step and take the time to prepareand submit a full request for extradition with allnecessary evidence at the outset. Either a State orFederal felony violation may serve as the basis foran extradition request, provided the potential maxi-mum penalty exceeds 1 year’s imprisonment.

Extradition for both State and Federal prosecutorsreflects a commitment to prosecute the abductor.The prosecutor must commit in writing to preparethe extradition request with supporting evidence; topay the costs of extradition (translation and travelcosts for escorts and fugitive); and to prosecute theabductor, if extradition is successful, whether or notthe child can be returned.

Practical problem: State prosecutors may forego prosecutingabductors for international child abduction because of thecosts associated with international extradition. See gap 9,recommendation 9.2.

Extradition depends upon whether the United Stateshas a bilateral extradition treaty with the country ofrefuge, whether the treaty partner can extradite forinternational parental kidnapping, and whether thecountry of refuge will extradite its own nationals. TheUnited States has more than 100 extradition treatiesin effect. The Extradition Treaties Interpretation Actof 1998 (Title II of Public Law 105–323) authorizesthe United States to interpret extradition treatieslisting “kidnapping” as encompassing the offense ofparental kidnapping. It is understood that this inter-pretation will be adopted only where it is shared bythe other country. (See Federal Register, Vol. 64, No.15, January 15, 1999, pp. 3735–36.) Ultimately, deci-sions to extradite offenders rest entirely with the for-eign state, through its judiciary and other authorities.

The abducted child is not subject to extradition. Theprosecutor and law enforcement should considerthe effect that any effort to arrest and extradite anabductor may have upon the welfare of the child andhis or her recovery. When the whereabouts of theabductor and child are not known, efforts to locate

37

the abductor for purposes of arrest and extraditionmay indirectly facilitate child recovery. However,particularly in Hague countries, such efforts mayhinder civil child recovery under the Convention.Those left behind will not necessarily be informed ofany or all efforts to locate and arrest the abductor,for a variety of reasons, including the use of infor-mants and the maintenance of sensitive law en-forcement relationships abroad. However, when anabductor is arrested, authorities will inform the left-behind parent so that he or she can take steps to re-cover the child. The foreign government also may useits own child welfare authority to take the child intoprotective custody, pending further proceedings.

Stopping an Abduction in Progress: Interceptingthe Abductor

When an abduction is in progress and law enforce-ment is notified immediately, it may be possible tostop the abduction before the abductor leaves theUnited States, while the abductor is transitingthrough a second country, or upon arrival but beforeadmission to the foreign destination country.

In the United States

As a general rule, law enforcement efforts to stop anabduction in progress will be directed at interceptingand detaining the suspected abductor for violatingState or Federal criminal law. Once the suspectedabductor is located, if there is no criminal warrantpending against him or her and if there is no otherbasis to detain the abductor further for criminalinvestigative purposes (such as indications the childis in danger), law enforcement authorities must re-lease the abductor and the child to continue on theirjourney. The conclusion to draw is that, although asuspected abductor and victim child may be tempo-rarily detained for a variety of reasons, the onlyeffective means of stopping an abduction inprogress is through criminal process.

Immediately upon being informed by the left-behindparent of an international abduction in progress,local law enforcement may contact the FBI fieldoffice and/or INTERPOL for assistance. Once con-tacted, the FBI works with the lead prosecutor andlocal investigator and coordinates with other appro-

priate agencies (including, depending upon the factsof the case, the Department of State, INTERPOL,OIA, Customs and INS, and local law enforcementauthorities such as port authority police) to investi-gate and, if possible, stop an abduction in progress.Prompt NCIC entries on the child (Missing PersonFile) and abductor (Wanted Persons File if there is awarrant) improve the chances for detection in theUnited States. The FBI agent may treat the abduc-tion in progress as a UFAP matter or an IPKCAinvestigation and open a preliminary or full investi-gation. The FBI will use the resources and tools thatare used to track and arrest any criminal fugitiveattempting international flight. The INTERPOL–USNCB immediately contacts all appropriate U.S.and foreign authorities in an effort to halt the abduc-tion and to recover the child.

(In cases relying solely upon the Hague Conventionor the exercise of foreign police powers as to thewelfare of the child, the Department of State, Officeof Children’s Issues will take the lead. See Stoppingan Abduction in Progress: Intercepting the Child,above.)

Upon Arrival or Entry at Foreign Country

Interception abroad may be possible through the useof a U.S. criminal arrest warrant coupled with arequest pursuant to any applicable extradition treatyfor urgent provisional arrest and/or through theexpedited revocation of passports or other traveldocuments. However, all discretion to intercept anabductor and child at a foreign port of entry restswith the foreign law enforcement and immigrationauthorities. The United States may request but can-not dictate what steps will be taken. Foreign au-thorities may execute a request from the UnitedStates for the urgent provisional arrest of the abduc-tor for purposes of extradition. The foreign govern-ment involved may also be able to exercise authorityunder its domestic law to prevent the entry of theabductor, to expel or deport the abductor, and/or toaddress the welfare of the child. If the abductor isarrested, foreign authorities generally take steps toprotect the child pending efforts by those left behindin the United States to recover the child.

38

Part 2. Incoming Cases

Locating Abducted Children and TheirAbductors in the United StatesMany of the resources available to find children andtheir abductors in outgoing cases are also available tofind abducted children and their abductors in thiscountry. In addition, non-U.S. citizens seeking returnof their children from the United States should con-tact their embassy in the United States for assistance.

National Center for Missing andExploited Children

Child Abducted From a Hague Convention Country

NCMEC handles incoming Hague cases on behalfof the Office of Children’s Issues under a tri-partyagreement with the Department of State, as U.S.Central Authority, and OJJDP. In this capacityNCMEC assists in discovering the whereabouts ofwrongfully removed and retained children in theUnited States. NCMEC receives Hague Conventionapplications for incoming cases and helps locatechildren abducted from Hague countries. NCMEC,handling incoming cases for the U.S. Central Au-thority, may also be requested by the foreign centralauthority or left-behind parent to report on the ab-ducted child’s condition. NCMEC coordinates withits State contacts to carry out such requests.

Child Abducted From a Non-HagueConvention Country

NCMEC also provides location assistance in non-Hague cases. NCMEC’s considerable locating capa-bilities include broadcasting fax posters of abductedchildren to more than 9,000 law enforcement agen-cies, FBI field offices, missing children clearing-houses, and border offices. It provides informationalmaterials to any parent or law enforcement officersearching for a child missing in the United Statesfrom another country.

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues

The Department of State plays no role in locating achild abducted to this country from a non-Hague

Convention country. The foreign government wouldcall upon its own consular officers in the UnitedStates to locate, visit, and report on the condition ofthe child.

INTERPOL–USNCB

Foreign police usually send messages throughINTERPOL to alert U.S. authorities about an ab-duction if they believe that the abductor may travelor is traveling to the United States. As part of itshumanitarian mission, INTERPOL–USNCB for-wards to U.S. authorities, as appropriate, incomingforeign messages concerning children abducted to orretained in the United States and relays all U.S.responses. USNCB may coordinate with NCMEC(which has a mandate to locate missing children)and/or with appropriate Federal, State, or local au-thorities to locate a child abducted to the UnitedStates from a Hague Convention country or a non-Hague country.

If the abduction is in progress, INTERPOL–USNCB forwards any foreign investigative requestto appropriate State and U.S. port-of-entry liaisons.They notify USNCB if the abductor and/or the childattempt to enter the United States.

Federal Inspection Service: INS and Customs

Abducted children and their abductors may be iden-tified at U.S. borders and international airports byFIS personnel as a result of their observations or ofIBIS queries in connection with border inspections.

NCIC

U.S. law enforcement in any capacity (e.g., State,local, FBI, and FIS personnel) and anywhere (e.g.,at ports of entry or elsewhere in the country) mayquery NCIC directly or through IBIS to cross-check information before them against NCIC files.When an NCIC record matches the inquiry, therecord will be confirmed and appropriate actiontaken.

FBI

At the request of a foreign police agency, the FBImay attempt to locate a child abducted to the United

39

States in violation of the criminal laws of the request-ing country. The FBI Legal Attache assigned to thecountry from which the child was abducted transmitsthe request to the appropriate FBI field office. If thechild is located by U.S. law enforcement, the FBInotifies the requesting foreign police agency.

U.S. Postal Service

Local, State, or Federal law enforcement officersinvestigating an incoming child abduction case mayrequest change-of-address information through theU.S. Postal Inspection Service. The Postal Servicealso has a photo distribution program to fax flyersof abducted children to post offices nationwide fordisplay and for dissemination by mail carriers.

Defense Department Legal Assistance Officesand Worldwide Military Locator Services

When a child residing abroad is wrongfully taken toor retained in the United States by a member of thearmed services or other family member accompany-ing the service member, the Legal Assistance Officefor the particular branch of the service can help findthe child by providing information on the servicemember’s most recent duty assignment and location.This information can also be obtained by familymembers and by Federal and State agencies fromthe Military Worldwide Locator Services for thespecific branch of the service in which the abductor(or family member) serves.

Federal Parent Locator Service

Address information on abductors and abducted chil-dren may be available from FPLS. The directory ofnew hires may be the most useful source of addressinformation in incoming abduction cases, particularlyif the abductor has no previous employment history inthe United States. However, a Social Security numberis needed to do a search.

Civil Remedies for Child Recovery

Hague Convention Remedy

The Hague Convention can be used to seek returnof a child who has been wrongfully taken to or keptin this country from another Hague Convention

country. A left-behind parent in another countrymay file an application for return with the foreigncentral authority or with the U.S. Central Authority,but is not required to do so. Instead, a return pro-ceeding may be filed directly in court.

At present, NCMEC handles incoming applicationsfor return under the Hague Convention on behalf ofOCI. NCMEC receives applications for assistancepursuant to the Hague Convention, correspondswith foreign central authorities, assists in locatingabducted children, coordinates with State missingchildren clearinghouses, provides legal referrals andparental support, and acts as liaison to law enforce-ment. Once a child is located, NCMEC facilitatesnegotiations between family members and the initia-tion of legal proceedings for return of the child un-der the Hague Convention.

Legal Proceedings Under the Convention

A left-behind parent abroad may bring legal proceed-ings in the United States for return or access underthe Convention. Procedures for using the Conventionin this country are set forth in the International ChildAbduction Remedies Act (42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq.).Implementation of the Convention is further clarifiedin the Code of Federal Regulations (Chapter 22, Part94). As with outgoing cases, neither NCMEC nor theU.S. Central Authority is a party to the return pro-ceeding. OCI as the U.S. Central Authority may sendan informational letter about the Convention to thecourt and the parties. The U.S. Central Authority isalso authorized by the Convention to request a statusreport on the case from the court if a ruling is notmade within 6 weeks.

The Hague Convention is not the exclusive remedy ininternational child abduction cases. A left-behind par-ent may use any means available under State law toseek return of abducted children or to exercise visita-tion rights. He or she need not notify the U.S. CentralAuthority or NCMEC to invoke the Convention or tobring any other lawsuit concerning the child.

Lawsuits to Enforce Foreign Custody andVisitation Orders

In the United States, the Uniform Child CustodyJurisdiction Act gives parents in other countries

40

a civil remedy to recover a child who has beenwrongfully taken to or kept in this country in viola-tion of a foreign custody or visitation order.UCCJA, as adopted in nearly every State, requiresState courts to recognize and enforce foreign cus-tody orders if reasonable notice and opportunity tobe heard were given to all affected persons.

An even more explicit requirement for enforcementof foreign custody determinations is contained in theUniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforce-ment Act (UCCJEA), which was promulgated in1997 as a replacement for UCCJA. As a uniformState law, UCCJEA is available for adoption na-tionwide; to date, two States have enacted it.UCCJEA requires State courts to enforce foreigncustody determinations as if they were made by sis-ter States. UCCJEA also empowers State law en-forcement and prosecutors to assist in the locationand civil recovery of children abducted from otherStates and countries, including Hague countries.

Through a private attorney, a left-behind parentmay file a petition in State court pursuant toUCCJA (or UCCJEA, as States adopt that statute)to enforce the custody and/or visitation provisions ofa custody order. The Federal Government plays norole in these proceedings.

In States that adopt UCCJEA, the designated Statepublic official (who is likely to be the local prosecu-tor) would assist in locating internationally abductedchildren; securing compliance with the Hague Con-vention; and, subject to conditions set forth in thestatute, enforcing foreign custody orders. The publicofficial acts on behalf of the court and does not rep-resent any party.

Practical problem: UCCJEA is a uniform State law. ForUCCJEA to have the greatest impact, all 50 States and theDistrict of Columbia must enact it. Federal support for thestatute might accelerate its consideration by the States. Inthat UCCJEA may facilitate incoming Hague and non-Hague cases, relevant Federal agencies should review it andconsider promoting its adoption. See Issues for FurtherStudy, 2.1.

Finding a Lawyer

Hague Cases

International Child Abduction Attorney Network.The International Child Abduction Attorney Network(ICAAN) is a network of attorneys willing to repre-sent parents in incoming Hague cases on a pro bonoor reduced-fee basis. NCMEC now maintains andendeavors to expand ICAAN, which was originallyestablished by the American Bar Association’s Centeron Children and the Law under an OJJDP grant.

NCMEC, under its agreement with the Departmentof State to handle incoming cases, makes every effort,using ICAAN, to find lawyers for parents. The needfor ICAAN arose because the United States, when itratified the Hague Convention, took a reservation toArticle 26, pursuant to which this country is not obli-gated to provide free lawyers to foreign applicantswho seek return of or access to their children underthe Convention except to the extent provided by ourlegal aid system. Also with OJJDP funding, theAmerican Bar Association developed materials forpractitioners and judges about the Hague Conven-tion. NCMEC provides attorneys participating inICAAN with these and other educational materials.

California’s public prosecutors. California has astatewide network of prosecutors who handle in-coming Hague matters involving children abductedto that State. NCMEC refers incoming Hague casesto the California State Attorney General’s Office,which refers the matter to the district attorney forthe county in which the child is located. Althoughthe State prosecutors do not represent any party,their efforts may obviate the need for the left-behindparent to hire his or her own lawyer, particularly ifthe return proceeding is uncontested.

Defense Department legal assistance. Members ofthe armed services may be able to secure legal helpfrom the Legal Assistance Office for their respectivebranch of the service.

Non-Hague cases. In non-Hague cases (and inHague cases in which the applicant does not obtaina lawyer via ICAAN or from the U.S. legal aid sys-tem), OCI refers parents to nongovernmentalsources of lawyer referrals (e.g., the American

41

Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, the AmericanBar Association Section on Family Law, and theInternational Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers).California district attorneys (and other States’ au-thorities if empowered by UCCJEA or otherwise)may provide assistance with respect to children ab-ducted to that State. As is true in Hague cases, legalassistance may be available to military personnelthrough the Legal Assistance Office for their spe-cific branch of service.

Intercepting a child at U.S. ports of entry. See In-tercepting Incoming Abductions in Progress, below.

Criminal Arrest and ExtraditionMany foreign governments send INTERPOL mes-sages to alert U.S. authorities about an abductorwho may enter or already may have entered theUnited States and whom the requesting countrymay wish to extradite.

Provisional Arrest and Extradition

Persons charged with violating foreign criminal stat-utes who are located in the United States may besubject to provisional arrest and extradition at therequest of a foreign government if the United Stateshas an extradition treaty in place that covers paren-tal child abduction. When a foreign arrest warrant isoutstanding and the foreign government seeks pro-visional arrest in the manner provided by the appli-cable treaty, the Department of State and/or OIAreviews the request and, as appropriate, forwards itfor action. Provided the fugitive is arrested, the re-questing country must submit a formal extraditionrequest and supporting documents pursuant to theapplicable treaty. OIA generally attempts to cross-check incoming extradition requests against pendingincoming Hague matters.

A fugitive arrested for purposes of extradition isentitled to a full hearing, appellate review, and afinal determination by the Secretary of State regard-ing his or her surrender to the country requestingextradition. As in outgoing cases, separate and coor-dinated efforts must be made to secure the recoveryof the child when the extradition of the fugitive ispursued.

Intercepting Incoming Abductions in Progress

Incoming abduction cases may be stopped at U.S.ports of entry by border authorities. The best chanceof interception is when a flight arrives at an airport inthis country, assuming foreign authorities have notifiedU.S. authorities. The full panoply of border lookouts,international police-to-police communication, andquick responses by those concerned bears on the suc-cess of stopping an incoming abduction in progress.Additional tools for alien exclusion and deportation arealso available under U.S. law, which may serve in therecovery of a child, as discussed elsewhere.

FIS personnel, who are cross-designated to carry outtheir respective duties at land borders, are usually thefirst U.S. officials encountered by travelers who seekto enter the United States. If an FIS inspector discov-ers and confirms a lookout for an abductor or a child(e.g., an IBIS or NCIC record), that inspector maydetain the person who is the subject of the lookout.The agency originating the NCIC record generallyprovides further instructions and information as tothe disposition of the subject. Any person is subject toarrest at the border if there is probable cause to arrestor if a U.S. criminal warrant is outstanding as to himor her. Further, under immigration authority FISpersonnel can deny admission to the United States ofcertain aliens. If deemed inadmissible, FIS personnelcan direct that the alien return to the country fromwhich he or she came.

If NCIC has an entry for a fugitive from foreignjustice for whom there is an INTERPOL red notice,INS ordinarily detains the subject briefly. Foreignfugitives cannot be arrested based solely upon anNCIC record regarding a foreign warrant. The for-eign government must seek provisional arrest with aview toward extradition. If the abductor is the sub-ject of a red notice, OIA is notified without delay sothat, if possible, provisional arrest and extraditioncan be coordinated with the State Department andthe foreign government.

If the abductor is arrested, INS coordinates withlocal law enforcement and State welfare authoritiesto secure temporary care for the child if age andcircumstances warrant. Information on the childand abductor’s whereabouts is transmitted to theforeign NCB.

42

ConclusionFederal policy and practice pertaining to interna-tional parental kidnapping have evolved signifi-cantly in the last 20 years in tandem with changesnationwide at the State level. As this report docu-ments, the Federal Government may respond inmany different ways when international abductionsare threatened or occur. Responses aim to preventabductions, and if they occur, to facilitate civil childrecovery and, as appropriate, the investigation, ex-tradition, and prosecution of abductors.

Even the best efforts will not ensure the return ofevery parentally abducted child and the satisfactory

resolution of any case as to all parties. However, thecurrent U.S. responses can improve, particularly inthe areas of prevention, training, and education ofparents and all who address these cases; technicaland case coordination; and international outreach.All such efforts will benefit victim children andthose left behind.

All such efforts have resource implications. Bothspecific measures and the resources to support themmust be available to ensure that the Federal Govern-ment is doing its utmost to protect children from theharmful effects of international parental kidnapping.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Members of the Interagency Working Group ........................................................... 45

Appendix 2: Laws That May Apply in International Parental Kidnapping Cases ................... 47

Appendix 1: Members of the InteragencyWorking Group

45

U.S. Department of State, ChairOffice of Children’s Issues*Office of the Legal Advisor

U.S. Department of JusticeChild Exploitation and Obscenity Section,

Criminal Division*Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Crimes

Against Children*INTERPOL—U.S. National Central Bureau*Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division*Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children*

* Member of the core interagency working group.

◆ Defense Department Regulations (32 CFR Part146); Department of Defense Directive 5525.9,Compliance of DoD Members, Employees, andFamily Members Outside the United States WithCourt Orders.

◆ Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act of 1998(Title II of Public Law 105–323). (See also FederalRegister, Vol. 64, No. 15, January 25, 1999, pp.3735–36.)

◆ Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073).

◆ Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Inter-national Child Abduction, Senate Treaty (Docu-ment Number 99–11, 1985; 19 ILM 1501). (Seealso Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 58, March 26,1986, pp. 10498 et seq.)

◆ Illegal Immigration Reform and ImmigrationResponsibility Act of 1996 (section 110, PublicLaw 104–208; 8 U.S.C. 1221 note).

◆ Immigration and Nationality Act (section212(a)(3)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(ii)).

◆ Immigration and Nationality Act (section212(a)(10)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)(C)).

Appendix 2: Laws That May Apply inInternational Parental Kidnapping Cases

47

◆ Immigration and Nationality Act (section 215, 8U.S.C. 1185).

◆ International Child Abduction Remedies Act (42U.S.C. 11601 et seq.).

◆ International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (18U.S.C. 1204 and 28 U.S.C. 1738A).

◆ Missing Children Act (28 U.S.C. 534).

◆ Missing Children’s Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.5771 et seq.).

◆ National Child Search Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.5779, 5780).

◆ Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (18U.S.C. 1073 note, 42 U.S.C. 502; 94 Stat. 3573;42 U.S.C. 663).

◆ State criminal parental kidnapping statutes.

◆ State flagging laws.

◆ Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (9U.L.A. at 123 (1988)).

◆ Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and En-forcement Act (9 U.L.A. at 115 (Part 1) (1997)).

a report to the attorney general on international … report to the attorney general on...

Documents